Opinion as featured in The New Zealand Herald, Saturday 16 October 2026
I’ve been watching the political debates ahead of this year’s election, and I’ve found myself increasingly frustrated. Not because of the policies themselves, but because we’re learning remarkably little about how they’ll shape our country.
Too often, political debates resemble a boxing match where everyone is waiting for the knockout blow. We get rehearsed attacks, interruptions and endless analysis of who ‘won’, but remarkably little scrutiny of the policies that will shape New Zealand’s future. Surely electing a government should be about more than who lands the best punch?
And frankly, I think we should expect better.
I’ve watched the debates with my children and wondered what we’re teaching them about leadership. Talking over someone or sneering at their answers isn’t clever. But leadership also requires the confidence to challenge ideas, defend a position and engage in robust debate. Surely we should expect our leaders to do all of this while treating one another with respect?
We should expect our leaders to be both respectful and robust, willing to challenge ideas and defend their positions without resorting to personal attacks. I want my children to understand that people can disagree passionately while treating one another with respect, that listening isn’t weakness, changing your mind isn’t failure and the strength of an argument isn’t measured by how loudly it’s delivered.
Robust debate is essential to democracy. But somewhere along the way, we’ve confused confrontation with scrutiny. This isn’t about one party. It’s a problem across the political spectrum, encouraged by a media format that rewards quick attacks over thoughtful answers.
And the public loses out.
Elections determine who makes decisions about our children’s education, healthcare, economy and future. Yet we spend more time watching politicians argue about one another than examining what they intend to do.
We should be scrutinising policies, not scoring punches. Ultimately, whether you like one Chris more than the other should be largely irrelevant. What matters is whether you believe in their policies, whether those policies will genuinely improve New Zealand and whether the teams behind them have the capability to deliver.
Elections shouldn’t be popularity contests. They should be about ideas, competence and delivery.
New research from 1News reinforces why this matters. Its Vote Compass research, drawing on more than 114,000 responses, identified three particularly polarising policy questions: whether the Government should fund GP visits for everyone, whether police should have powers to move on rough sleepers and whether to abolish the Māori electoral roll.
On fully funded GP visits, 44% opposed it while 41% supported the proposition. On abolishing the Māori electoral roll, 44% disagreed and 37% agreed.
These are significant questions that divide New Zealanders. Surely they’re exactly the issues deserving more than a fleeting exchange or clever political put-down?
Take Labour’s proposal for three free GP visits a year. Earlier this week, I met with a Māori leader who raised an important question: if removing fees increases demand without enough clinicians to meet it, who actually gets seen?
Could the ‘worried well’ secure appointments while those with the greatest health needs, who already face barriers to care, miss out?
Could this push more patients into overcrowded emergency departments, adding pressure to services caring for those who desperately need emergency treatment?
Labour says it will free up 4.5 million GP appointments annually. But when 47% of practices have GP vacancies, where will that capacity come from?
Promising AI funding is not a sufficient answer: a 2025 primary care survey found around 70% of respondents already used AI. So tell me, how do we ask already stretched GPs, many working evenings and weekends, to become even more productive?
And what about the cost? Labour’s policy will cost approximately $550 million annually, funded through its proposed capital gains tax. But what happens if property prices stagnate or sales slow? If the expected tax revenue doesn’t materialise, how will Labour fund an ongoing commitment of more than half a billion dollars every year?
National deserves equally rigorous scrutiny. It’s most polarising policy giving police powers to move on rough sleepers. Some 47% of New Zealanders supported the proposal while 38% opposed it, with almost identical numbers holding strongly opposing views. Surely that deserves a proper debate about public safety, homelessness and whether moving people on actually solves anything?
What happens to that person next? Are there enough housing, mental health and addiction services available? How will we measure whether communities are safer?
These are legitimate questions, just as concerns about public safety and business owners’ experiences deserve to be heard. These issues deserve serious examination, not slogans.
So why don’t we change the format?
I’d love broadcasters to introduce longer, issue-focused debates alongside traditional leaders’ debates. Imagine a dedicated healthcare debate, with segments on medicines, emergency departments and primary care.
Start with the evidence. What are the challenges? Then give each party uninterrupted time to properly present its thinking. Let them use graphs, data and presentations to explain their solutions, costs, trade-offs and what measurable improvements New Zealanders should expect. Give us the details, not just the soundbites.
Then bring in clinicians, patients, Māori communities and independent experts to challenge the proposals. Have moderators pursue difficult questions until they’re answered.
Not 20-second soundbites. Proper scrutiny.
Do the same for education, justice, infrastructure and the economy. Give politicians time to defend their ideas and hear from those directly affected.
None of this needs to be boring. Watching someone defend a difficult decision or acknowledge an uncomfortable trade-off is far more compelling than another rehearsed attack.
The media has a significant responsibility in all of this. Broadcasters and journalists don’t just report on debates. They shape them.
Too often, the focus shifts to the sharpest exchange, most provocative headline or clip most likely to generate clicks and shares. But what’s good for engagement isn’t necessarily what’s good for New Zealand.
We need a media more interested in testing policies than manufacturing conflict. One that values well-reasoned answers over clever put-downs.
That doesn’t mean going easy on politicians. Quite the opposite. It means asking harder questions, demanding evidence and refusing to accept rehearsed talking points instead of answers.
The media has an enormously important role in our democracy. With that comes a responsibility to inform New Zealanders, not simply entertain them.
Politicians must lift their game too. And as viewers, we should reward substance rather than spectacle. Ultimately, debates should help us decide who has the best ideas, strongest teams and ability to deliver.
Whatever government emerges from this election, New Zealanders will live with its decisions long after the debate clips stop circulating.
I’d happily trade a few memorable put-downs for a clearer understanding of how our country will be governed. And I’d like my children to see that you don’t have to shout someone down to prove you have the better ideas.
