The first leaders' debate was a dismal affair. Neither leader was persuasive, nor were their responses especially convincing. Both failed to achieve the circuit breaker each was seeking to reinvigorate their currently stalling campaigns. Together, their performances explain why the two major parties are attracting the lowest combined support levels since MMP was introduced thirty years ago.

Despite the contrary views of the panel of allegedly uncommitted voters, there was no clear winner of this dreary occasion. Christopher Luxon failed to demonstrate the empathy expected of modern political leaders. While he recited an impressive array of statistics about the government’s performance over the last three years, he seemed unable to weave them together into a cogent argument about how they were having a real and positive impact on people’s lives.

On the other hand, Chris Hipkins’ faux anger did not sit convincingly with his overall persona and left him looking merely petulant rather than genuinely concerned about the country’s situation today. Nor has he yet seemed to get the message that his government was thrown out at the last election because of its economic management that disrupted so many people’s lives and livelihoods in the wake of the pandemic.

Overall, the pattern of the debate was predictable. There were no dramatic moments, nor new policies announced. Rather, there was simply the turgid repetition of the lines of argument both leaders have pursued so relentlessly for the last three years, and which have turned off so many voters in that time. Nearly two-thirds of voters cast a party vote for either National or Labour in 2023 – but today polls show that, thanks to the efforts of the two Chrises since then, about one fifth of those voters intend to vote for someone else at this year’s election.

It is unlikely the first leaders’ debate will have done anything to arrest that trend.

By contrast, the radio debate between the two main finance spokespeople – National’s Nicola Willis and Labour’s Barbara Edmonds – was more constructive and positive. Although both also stuck to their previously well-rehearsed lines, each managed to inject a measure of personality and connection into the debate, something that had been demonstrably lacking in the more automaton-like performances of Luxon and Hipkins during their debate.

But there are two bigger questions than the respective performances that arise from the two debates so far.

First, was all the hype around them justified? Are the current audiences of Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand still sufficiently large and representative for these debates to have any significant impact on voter opinion? After all, in today’s more dynamic media environment traditional broadcasting outlets are struggling to maintain audience share, and it is doubtful that debates between two staid contenders for the role of Prime Minister will do anything to turn that around.

Second, given that the next government will be a multi-party arrangement of whatever hue, how realistic and useful is it for debates to continue to focus solely on the leaders of the historical two main parties? The choice between Luxon and Hipkins is not a presidential one – the role of Prime Minister today is much than ever before that of chair of the board.

The emphasis should therefore be less on their specific party policies than on their capacity to bring together differing parties to form a cohesive government. Luxon inadvertently confirmed this point during his debate with his admission that while National’s policy was to progressively increase the age of entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation, it was not supported by either of his coalition partners, so, by implication, was unlikely to happen.

Likewise, although the issue of tax was curiously barely mentioned in the debate between Willis and Edmonds, it remains a live issue, especially as the currently high-polling Greens remain determined to push for the imposition of a wealth tax in addition to Labour’s capital gains tax. While Hipkins continues to rule that out, how credible is that, given the strong role the Greens are destined to play in any future Labour-led government?

At the very least, there is an argument for involving the Greens in debate where their proposition and commitment to it can be more thoroughly tested. The artificiality of constraining debates to the presumed major parties is becoming an outdated hangover from the past.

Overall, given both current media dynamics and today’s rapidly changing political landscape, it is increasingly difficult to see the continuing worth or relevance of the current pattern of debates in the traditional media, focusing on the key spokespeople of National and Labour only. The days of the old political duopoly are rapidly fading, and the current crop of their leaders makes even the entertainment value of their old-style debates dubious at best.