Election 2026: Herald experts pick which Chris won the TVNZ Leaders’ Debate

The real winner of the night was 1 News’ panel of undecided voters. They broke 49% for Chris Hipkins, 24% for Christopher Luxon and 27% undecided. There was a point in the night when it was a bit closer, with Hipkins in the 50s and Luxon in the 40s. In my view, this felt about right: Hipkins won, but it was narrow.

Luxon is a better campaigner than Hipkins but a worse debater, something New Zealanders are probably familiar with, having witnessed his weekly broadcast interviews and appearances in Question Time.

Luxon actually put in a good performance on Tuesday tonight, maybe his best. He was pretty nimble and made most of the points he wanted to make, but he still lost. And that’s sort of the point: even when Luxon is at his best, he still loses. He lost by just a whisker, but he still lost.

Hipkins had something of a home-side advantage. Voters feel pessimistic about the country and the economy. In general, when times are tough, it’s easier not to be the incumbent. He was able to give simple “no” answers to things he didn’t like, quite unlike Luxon’s awkward equivocation. He was quicker on his feet and able to get out of situations that disadvantaged him.

An example: the India free-trade agreement is a big win for the Government. Hipkins famously rubbished it on the campaign trail at the last election, including during that election’s TVNZ debate. Instead of digging in and arguing the point, he gave Luxon and the current Government credit for the win, then moved on.

Luxon’s habitual clumsiness didn’t help him. He celebrated interest rates going down. Rates are down from where they were under Labour, but they’re heading up. In a section where the party leaders were asked whether they would hike existing taxes, Luxon initially said he wouldn’t, a remark that had the entire country yelling at the television that Luxon plans to hike fuel taxes. (In fairness to Luxon, Labour’s plan to freeze them is based on pretty ropey fiscals).

Luxon didn’t go too hard on the “no new taxes” line, which was refreshing and, in my view, the right move. But he did not prosecute an area where Labour really does have questions to answer: its fiscal plan, which lacks detail in the ways National alleges it does - there’s no money for essential services. Luxon’s problem is that he lacks the grasp of policy detail needed to prosecute this issue in the way Sir John Key might have done. As panellist Ben Thomas said after the debate, Key’s “show me the money” line casts a shadow over all political debates, more than a decade later. There wasn’t anything like that this time around.

The debate wasn’t one-sided. Luxon was strongest in two areas: first, when he was talking about how dreadful things were three years ago. Hipkins didn’t have much of a defence for the fact his own Government ended in chaos and failure. Hipkins himself had all the appeal of a three-year-old sausage roll. His big issue is leaving behind the baggage of the last Government. He failed to do that.

Luxon was also strongest on education. This is staggering, given Hipkins spent most of his ministerial career as Education Minister. Education gave Luxon something to talk about that was hopeful, optimistic and appeared to be in line with international best practice. It’s also an area where Labour has a very mixed legacy. Hipkins’ hands were tied in this segment; the primary audience for Labour’s education policy is teachers’ unions rather than voters.

Verdict: Hipkins won

The bickering over fiscal plans and funding holes was unbearable to begin with, but after Jack Tame told the leaders how unbearable it was for viewers, they improved their behaviour. It has now been so overused by National, it has lost its value.

Chris Hipkins was the stronger performer by far. He was more direct, more specific about policies to alleviate the cost of living, (free GP visits, free prescriptions, capped public transport costs and no fuel tax rises), and crisper in his delivery.

He was more relatable, even in his description of when he felt most proud of New Zealand. He recalled the days of national unity following the March 15 mosque attacks in a moment that almost brought a lump to the throat.

Luxon’s moment of pride was undoubtedly sincere, when he visited Kiwi soldiers in Britain training Ukrainian civilians, but less affecting.

Hipkins was neither robotic nor clichéd. He admitted he had been wrong on some things, such as the slow response to youth offending in the last Government, and gave Luxon kudos for achieving a free-trade agreement with India when he had previously been a sceptic.

Luxon was strongest on education, as he often is. He made Labour’s policy of slowing down the reforms and setting up an expert council to oversee them look wishy-washy.

As he often is, Luxon was also strong on immigration, at least on the critics of New Zealand’s policy “pretending they are Nigel Farage”. He reminded viewers that he had called out Winston Peters’ comments about Chinese people lying like flatfish as being “racist”. Hipkins said he would have sacked Peters.

The lines were drawn clearly over the investment boost subsidy for business, which was funded in last year’s Budget by cancelling pay equity claims of largely low-paid women who work in places such as rest homes. Labour would cancel Investment Boost. Luxon reckoned it was great for the ski business at Coronet Peak and the Queenstown community.

Verdict: The debate was a tight contest

Pre-debate, moderator Jack Tame told the TVNZ studio audience that we weren’t in church. “You don’t have to be 100% silent,” he said of the next 90 minutes. Feel free to laugh too.

Moments later, just a few minutes before the cameras rolled, soft music drifted through the studio. “Is this to relax us before the start?” pondered Chris Hipkins, waiting in the wings.

The TVNZ debates have traditionally been the more sombre televised leaders’ face-offs, compared with the previous Newshub affairs. But Tame, moderating his first one-on-one leaders’ debate, brought exactly the right mix of pace, energy and levity.

There were plenty of lively moments, including a back-and-forth over who wasn’t John Key and who wasn’t Helen Clark. But neither Christopher Luxon nor Hipkins really grabbed the audience. More than a quarter of the undecided voters on the floor above the studio remained unconvinced after the debate.

Hipkins had the better of the opening half. Luxon grew into the debate and finished much more strongly.

Hipkins showed a greater willingness to acknowledge mistakes and policy reversals such as introducing a capital gains tax. Luxon’s greatest strength was his ability to identify many of those perceived Labour and Hipkins mistakes, particularly in education, where he was at his most effective.

But Luxon remains reluctant to lower the political shield. Too often his answers sound rehearsed rather than authentic.

At one point he insisted he could answer yes-or-no questions. Yet repeatedly he didn’t. What’s wrong with acknowledging you’ve changed your mind on a matter? Asked for an example, Luxon replied: “I can’t think of a policy example where I’ve done that.”

Both leaders were underwhelming on health. When Tame raised the tragic case of a patient who died in a toilet at Waikato Hospital’s emergency department, the moment called for empathy first and policy second. Instead, viewers got talking points.

Tame had said we could laugh. This was enough to make you cry.

Although he faded late, Hipkins’ strongest moment came in the second half when he challenged Luxon directly over his reluctance to more firmly discipline Winston Peters and Shane Jones for anti-Chinese and anti-Indian comments made while serving as Cabinet ministers.

Hipkins can claim a points victory, but neither leader landed a knockout blow.

By the final commercial break, the two leaders were chatting off-camera. We’re just getting started, they told Tame. Hipkins reckoned they could go till 10pm.

They’ll get another chance next week, this time in front of Ryan Bridge for the Herald and Three.

Verdict: Chris Hipkins won but Christopher Luxon wasn’t far behind

If we are to believe this is a cost-of-living election, and there’s plenty of evidence to support that, Chris Hipkins can feel he has the advantage following the first leaders’ debate but not by as great a margin as TVNZ’s undecided voters might suggest.

With the high cost of living the overwhelming issue for New Zealanders, many viewers would have rankled at the suggestion from Christopher Luxon that some are feeling “very strongly” that prices are coming down; which Hipkins leapt on.

In a classic Opposition tactic, Hipkins used his opening remarks to ask viewers whether they felt better off today than they were three years ago - a question which, when the cost of living has been the central issue for months and months, carries with it an obvious answer.

Host Jack Tame tried valiantly but largely failed to keep the debate forward-looking, as both Hipkins and Luxon attacked each other’s records. This was always going to be the risk of Labour not changing its leader after a terrible 2023 election result as a new leader can’t be held to the previous Labour Government’s record as Hipkins can. It will be interesting to see how long Kiwis’ memories are in how much cut-through National can achieve on criticising Hipkins. Given the Labour leader’s unfavourability in most polls, it seems like there are wins to be had for National there.

When inevitably asked about his $60 weekly shop which caused a stir during the 2023 debates, Luxon admitted it was largely the same given he was an “empty nester” in Wellington with his shopping limited to “a box of FruJus and a couple of bananas and some kiwifruit”.

In line with National’s attacks alleging holes in Labour’s fiscal plan, a strong focus for Luxon was peppering Hipkins with claims his promises were unfunded. Tame attempted to tamp down such interjections, noting that debate loses the viewers’ attention, likely to Hipkins’ relief. Tame has a point but given the questions that remain around Labour’s ability to fund future pay equity claims which Luxon pressed Hipkins hard on, it’s worthy of inclusion. Hipkins raised the fair point National has yet to publish its own fiscal plan.

On health, Hipkins was able to work in a real-life story of being approached by a nurse in tears speaking of an ever-present crisis in the health system.

However, Hipkins wasn’t able to effectively prosecute Luxon’s claims about the number of nurses hired under his government when Labour had previously managed to debunk some of Health Minister Simeon Brown’s statements on that topic.

Tax was bound to feature in the debate, although Luxon used the party’s tagline of “no new taxes” and its attack-line of Labour’s alleged “nine new taxes” rather sparingly.

Hipkins got away without too much focus on a sudden backdown on his party’s position on the coalition’s “tax cuts for landlords”, while Luxon tripped up when initially committing to not increasing any existing taxes, only for Hipkins to remind him of Luxon’s planned increases to fuel excise tax.

Luxon was clearly at his most confident on crime and education, where he can point to real gains under his Government and declared Hipkins the worst education minister in New Zealand history. Hipkins was forced to admit his government was too slow to address youth crime and didn’t coherently explain his plan on education.

Hipkins failed to clearly articulate his position on co-governance - and should have had a better answer than the one he eventually got to which is a promise not to replicate the Three Waters arrangements - but did prosecute Luxon on failing to address “racist” comments from Winston Peters and Shane Jones.

Hipkins had a clearer position on the US-Iran conflict, saying attacks from both sides were illegal while acknowledging an “unfolding genocide” in Gaza. Luxon deferred authority to the international courts.

Anyone who thought these two relatively unpopular leaders of two relatively unpopular parties would attempt to rise above the bickering would have gone away disappointed. There was enough niggle between the two (not to the level seen in 2023) but the rapid pace Tame set didn’t allow either leader to land any major blows; most of the remarks intended to injure the opponent were drowned out by Tame’s next question in a debate that didn’t feature a single defining moment.

There were a handful of policy commitments. Both leaders said they would extend the Working for Families $50-per-week support if high fuel prices persisted when it was due to expire early next year. Hipkins committed to a pilot programme for screening prostate cancer, which National already supports.

Hipkins also confirmed Labour would return the smokefree generation laws, which were scrapped by the coalition Government, and indicated further restrictions on vaping but didn’t elaborate.

There were a few moments of collegiality; Hipkins acknowledged Luxon achieving a free trade deal with India which Labour supports and the pair expectedly aligned on artificial intelligence where they both straddled the line between wanting to boost productivity and efficiency while regulating the risks in line with international partners.

Both were awkward when asked by Tame whether it was morally acceptable to be a billionaire. Both refused to give a clear answer but Hipkins took the unwise approach of having a go at Tame for cutting his answers off while not adhering to Tame’s “Yes or No” request.

Despite repeated references to Lil Jon and a nod towards a 69 joke, Tame performed admirably to keep the leaders on topic, given how many were traversed.

In the end, 49% of TVNZ’s pool of undecided voters said Hipkins had won their vote, compared to just 24% for Luxon. The remaining 27% were still undecided.

It seems an unfair reflection of Luxon’s performance but given two-thirds of that undecided audience cited cost of living as their main issue, it suggests Hipkins took the advantage in what appears to be the most pivotal space ahead of November 7.