Election 2026: Our experts pick who won the NZ Herald Leaders’ Debate

Verdict: Chris Hipkins won, but not by much.

Unlike the TVNZ debate last week, which was an emphatic win for Hipkins, this one was much closer.

Hipkins was like a coiled spring from the outset, ready to pounce on any repeat of National’s refrain of nine new taxes and to try to make Christopher Luxon own his coalition partners’ controversial policies, in the same way National does with Labour.

Luxon was at his patronising worst, telling Hipkins to calm down at one point, having referred to him earlier in the day as “sunshine”.

Luxon has a story to tell for every policy but, if Hipkins can get too nit-picky, Luxon can get too preachy.

Hipkins’ skill is that when he sniffs an advantage, he uses it quickly and decisively, as he did when questioned about Te Pāti Māori and Green MPs attending an election seminar hosted by the Mongrel Mob.

Asked by host Ryan Bridge if he would rule out having a Green or Te Pāti Māori MP in charge of the police or Corrections, Hipkins simply said “Yes” and that attending the event had been a bad judgment.

He followed it up with statistics about the use of meth having tripled in the term of this Government and the number of gang members growing despite the banning of gang patches. “They haven’t tackled crime; they’ve made it less visible.”

Hipkins also had some quick comebacks when Luxon burnished his own economic credentials, pointing out that half of the current debt was booked under Luxon’s Government, which had borrowed more and spent more than his.

Luxon was good on education, as he almost always is, and on foreign affairs where he shines. He even agreed with Hipkins that in upholding a ruling of the International Criminal Court, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be arrested if he came to New Zealand.

The second half was much easier for them and the viewers than the first half, especially the more personal parts about Hipkins’ DIY expertise and Luxon’s love of country music.

On policy, they almost look as though they are sick of the sound of each other’s voices.

Verdict: The winner was Ryan Bridge.

Jibber jabber, jibber jabber, the moderator protested at one point early on. You could sense the audience at home groaning in agreement.

A sizeable period of this debate followed an expected political arc – complete with the usual sniping and chipping which Kiwis have come to loathe.

Chris Hipkins, especially, was spoiling for a scrap; Christopher Luxon was more reserved and therefore statesmanlike.

But Luxon’s armour was chipped when he failed to acknowledge that the minimum wage had not kept up with inflation and was pierced over his lack of an appropriate response on the National-led coalition’s pay-equity cancellation.

But, really, watching these two go head-to-head is like watching the third- and fourth-place final of the Rugby World Cup. We are waiting for a champion; on this showing, neither of them is it.

As a media columnist, I happily and safely name Bridge the winner of the debate.

He warmed into the job quickly and kudos to him for saving the occasion, with precision, intelligence and levity at the appropriate moments. I worry for Patrick Gower and Luke Malpass, who have to take these guys into a third round next week.

But this was otherwise an uninspiring showing from both leaders. “All shit,” summed up panellist David Letele after the debate. And later: “They fill me with no hope.”

At 8.17pm, the debate opened up with a pearler of a question from Bridge. Would you welcome Donald Trump with open arms?

“Why didn’t you ask him first,” Hipkins asked – a genuinely funny moment.

Luxon also answered that one well, highlighting the statesmanlike role of the job of a Prime Minister with the country’s allies.

Luxon was strongest, once again, on education. Hipkins fell into an explaining-is-losing routine around reading, writing and mathematics. He’s not wanting to upset the unions, but by gee, he’s losing sight of a more important constituency – parents and kids.

Hipkins was strongest on the pay equity scrap. “They pulled the rug out from under their feet.”

And Luxon continues to lose points on his positioning around the Opportunity Party. He ruled out working with them once again – if you take that to the conclusion, he’s perfectly happy to allow a Labour-Greens-Opportunity-Te Pāti Māori coalition take power.

Of course, he still thinks Opportunity won’t make it. But that positioning is now becoming blind arrogance. On Wednesday night’s performance, by both leaders, Opportunity is a shoo-in.

Verdict: Christopher Luxon, despite that minimum-wage facepalm.

Most of this election’s debates, except for Tuesday’s TVNZ minor party debate perhaps, are suffering from the same curse; having to address all the things going wrong in this country.

That curse is particularly prevalent in the leaders’ debates, where both Luxon and Chris Hipkins are so weighed down by the flaws in their own records that they appear poorly equipped to tackle the array of challenges New Zealanders are facing.

I’d imagine you’ll struggle to find many who watched Tuesday’s debate or Wednesday’s who felt either Hipkins or Luxon performed well.

I felt Luxon had stronger one-liners overall, particularly when it came to Te Pāti Māori and the Green Party visiting the Mongrel Mob, which came to light on Wednesday and could not have come at a better time for Luxon – and equally a worse time for Hipkins. As expected, Luxon leaned on 2023 attack lines, suggesting the gangs were Labour’s newest coalition partner and later referenced it twice more.

Hipkins confirmed he wouldn’t give the Greens or Te Pāti Māori the police or Corrections portfolios if in coalition, calling the meeting with the Mongrel Mob a misjudgment. It was quick thinking and probably the only answer he could give; whether that will reassure anyone or hold through potential coalition negotiations is another matter entirely.

Luxon also had a clearer line on the potential for more taxes on the left, declaring “Mark my words, you are going to be paying, New Zealand”. However, his authority on the cost of living took a serious hit when he incorrectly claimed the minimum wage had increased with inflation under his Government, something Hipkins pounced on immediately and exposed another of Luxon’s unforced errors, which he can be prone to do in these debates.

Education was another strong point for Luxon as Hipkins appeared tongue-tied trying to explain why he wouldn’t say an hour of reading, writing and maths is a good thing.

Pay equity was Hipkins’ best display, invoking the plight of care and support workers, which aligns nicely with Labour’s commitment for an immediate pay rise if elected.

As is the case in politics, the non-commitments are just as telling as the commitments. Neither leader gave a clear answer when challenged on working with projected kingmaker the Opportunity Party; Luxon still wouldn’t explicitly state he would prefer to go into Opposition before working with Opportunity, while Hipkins didn’t declare he would go into Opposition if working with Opportunity meant implementing another tax.

There was an interesting signal from Luxon on the Māori seats, suggesting he was watching to see how the public reacts to a potential overhang created by Te Pāti Māori intentionally campaigning for one before committing to a referendum on the seats, which partners New Zealand First support while Act wants to abolish them without a referendum.

Don’t expect much from the handshake commitment to progress bipartisanship support in areas such as supermarkets, artificial intelligence (AI) and health within the new Government’s first 100 days. Neither leader appeared very aware of what they were committing to and if the comments following the suggested accord on superannuation are anything to go by, it likely won’t go far.

Luxon did appear more statesmanlike when Hipkins had to concede Luxon’s openness to welcoming US President Donald Trump to New Zealand as the duty of any leader was the right call, after initially asking host Ryan Bridge to make Luxon answer first.

Ultimately, Luxon was better than last week and Hipkins wasn’t as good. I doubt many viewers will be impressed. Perhaps if Bridge had persisted with his “shag, marry, kill” joke, it might have been a bit more entertaining.

Verdict: Chris Hipkins, because Christopher Luxon lost.

If anyone needed an illustration of why New Zealanders are disillusioned with our major political parties, you only needed to watch Wednesday night’s debate.

Despite Ryan Bridge’s best attempts at bringing some energy, both leaders recycled the same old arguments, seemingly more interested in coming up with quick retorts to interrupt their opponent than in crafting anything that resembled a vision for the country.

Bridge had to practically force the pair together to agree on bipartisan work on superannuation, infrastructure and medicine.

Hipkins answered a question about what his big visionary idea was for New Zealand with ... a detail-lacking and largely unfunded Future Fund that Kiwis won’t learn more about until after the election.

The policy is meant to create a pool of money taken from some state company dividends and direct it towards business, creating jobs. But until Labour can put some meat around those skeletal bones, it feels like a long-shot dream.

Despite that, Hipkins’ experience did shine in being across statistics and policy in a way that Luxon may be internally, but can’t consistently or eloquently communicate.

The National leader stumbled in stringing together a rejection of the idea that he supported the war in Iran.

“The reality on something like the Iran conflict, that has nothing to do with New Zealand,” he said at one stage.

The US President’s decision to launch that war may have been something New Zealand couldn’t control, but Kiwis are feeling the repercussions today with sky-high fuel prices, making that line feel particularly out of touch – in a globalised world, a conflict like that has everything to do with New Zealand.

But Luxon’s most out-of-touch comment was confidently suggesting the minimum wage had been “more or less” increasing by the rate of inflation, which Hipkins quickly hit back at by saying it hadn’t.

With the cost of living on everyone’s minds, it felt like a pivotal moment.