While all interesting in their own right (no, really), some debates definitely matter more than others.
The ASB Great Debate started in Queenstown in 2011, and quickly established itself as one of the pre-eminent sparring matches of the election campaign. "It’s the economy, stupid" is as true a statement on what elections are about today as it was when James Carville said it in 1992, and this is an event in which the respective party’s finance spokespeople want to shine.
There was also about half of the Parliamentary Press Gallery in attendance and 1News and Newshub both carried live crosses — confusingly for anyone in the room listening, at exactly the same time — in their bulletins.
So, yes this debate matters. But this year it mattered even more than usual, coming at a pivotal time in the election campaign.
National was in the process of sleepwalking to victory — all the polls released so far this week had Labour at a number starting with two and National at a number starting at three ... or higher.
But National got a rude awakening on Thursday morning when a group of economists issued a scathing report which found that costings for one of its flagship policies — a tax on foreign home buyers — potentially had a half-billion dollar hole in it.
In the bearpit that the Queenstown debate often is, the last thing you want is to be going in on the defensive, but that was exactly what National’s finance spokeswoman Nicola Willis was doing.
Unfortunately for her, her Labour counterpart, Grant Robertson, won the draw to make the opening statement and he was quick to put the lack of certainty about National’s costings front and centre.
Ms Willis was up next and tried to counterpunch with her usual attack lines on Labour’s spending, but was struggling to connect with what should have been a sympathetic audience, given that she was standing in the middle of one of the Bluest electorates in the country.
That was left to mediator Jack Tame, who caused Ms Willis to stumble embarrassingly when he asked what impact reintroducing interest deductability for landlords and altering the bright line test would have.
"I don’t know what it will do to house prices" was her unsteady response, to loud murmuring, before fighting back to add that she did not think interest deductability was a major influence.
Minutes later Tame landed another blow, when he asked Ms Willis what impact the foreign buyer tax policy would have on house prices. Her response that "we don’t think it will affect them" was greeted by derision.
"You will be incentivising anyone selling their house to make it the price $2 million instead of $1.7 [ million, the average house price in Queenstown] so that they can have foreign buyers come into the market," Tame went on.
Ms Willis rallied back, saying building more houses would increase supply, but the damage was done.
Mr Robertson did not escape unscathed himself. After claiming that Act New Zealand’s policy would mean an end to the major event fund and its support for events such as the Winter Games at Cardrona, he was told in no uncertain terms from the floor that the games would go ahead next year regardless of who was in power.
Surprisingly, it was Greens co-leader James Shaw, who is usually mild-mannered in these debates, who was keenest to take on Ms Willis about her numbers, landing a couple of big blows when pushing her to answer why her foreign buyer tax would not drive the cost of housing up.
The beneficiary of all the bluster was Act New Zealand’s David Seymour, who generally kept out of the argy-bargy and concentrated on getting his points over with some well-placed gags.
His bravado was almost his undoing though, his brazen and well-signalled plans to lay 15,000 public servants off, to supposedly slim down the back room and reinforce the front line getting a few intakes of breath and a couple of shouts of disapproval.
Just as the day had started badly for Ms Willis, it did not end well either, as she was relentlessly grilled by reporters about her costings in a stand-up after the debate.
There is another old saying in politics: explaining is losing. Ms Willis may not be losing at the moment, but a day spent doing nothing but explaining — and several more days of similar to come, no doubt — will help her cause not one little bit.
Tale of the tape
Grant Robertson: "I hear a lot of professors of hindsight economics up on the stage here who seem to think that we didn’t go through Covid. We did, and most parties said at the time let’s look after people."
"We will fully cost everything that we do and we will make sure that at the end of the day every New Zealander is given the chance to succeed.".
Verdict: Solid but lacked a knockout punch at a time he needed it. 6.5
Nicola Willis: "Our tax plan is about New Zealanders getting to keep more of their own money because they are sick of the way you [Robertson] spend it."
"There is huge demand from people who want to buy expensive luxury homes in New Zealand. They are going to come back and I’m going to tax them and I’m going to use that to ensure that New Zealanders, the squeezed middle, can get to keep more of what they earn."
Verdict: Up against it from the off. Surprisingly for a seasoned debater, battled to make an impact. 5.
David Seymour: "Spending is the issue, introducing new taxes is not the path to prosperity for New Zealand."
"I’m just astonished we’re in a debate where the National party is now arguing that they will tax more and Labour is saying it will tax less.".
Verdict: As usual, had the best one-liners and the most breath-taking cheek, unapologetically pledging to lay off 15,000 public servants. 7.
"If it [foreign buyer tax] is only a tiny fraction of the houses, how are you going to raise enough revenue to pay for those tax cuts?"
Verdict: Had a more sympathetic audience than expected, earnest and unusually feisty taking on Ms Willis. 6.5.
Jack Tame: "That didn’t even come close to answering the question I asked."
Verdict: Excellent in keeping the debate relevant and under control, without being intrusive. 10.
