Luxon opened bluntly: \u201cI\u2019m here today to talk about the economy \u2013 and almost nothing else.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are going for growth.\u201d<\/p>\n
On that, he is right. Living standards depend on growth. Elections are usually decided by the economy.<\/p>\n
The Prime Minister then listed 37 initiatives \u2013 from Resource Management Act reform to more Eden Park concerts. It was comprehensive and relentless. It lacked hierarchy.<\/p>\n
If the economy grows and voters feel it in wages, mortgages and prices, the Government will be re-elected. If growth stalls, it will lose.<\/p>\n
If the economy is neither hot nor cold, then the campaigns will decide.<\/p>\n
Buried in Luxon\u2019s address was the outline of a strong speech, obscured by detail. Last year was meant to be the year of growth. That required explanation.<\/p>\n
All three speeches lacked empathy. A good speech should make an audience laugh, reflect and occasionally be moved. These were competent briefings, not memorable addresses.<\/p>\n
Luxon leans heavily on superlatives \u2013 \u201cexceptional\u201d, \u201cextraordinary\u201d, \u201ctremendous\u201d. Hyperbole invites doubt. Understatement persuades.<\/p>\n
His closing drifted into a series of \u201cI want\u201d declarations. Voters are less interested in what Luxon wants than in what New Zealand can achieve.<\/p>\n
I rated his speech six out of 10 for policy and four out of 10 for politics.<\/p>\n
Hipkins delivered a technically stronger address.<\/p>\n
His core line was simple: \u201cNew Zealanders were promised the cost of living would be fixed. Two years later, it\u2019s worse.\u201d<\/p>\n
Hipkins is effectively counting on continued economic weakness. He has made \u201caffordability\u201d the centrepiece of Labour\u2019s pitch.<\/p>\n
Affordability is not a policy. It is an outcome. It follows from growth, supply and fiscal discipline. It cannot be achieved by declaration.<\/p>\n
He said Labour \u201ctried to do too much, too fast\u201d. In truth, Labour inherited strong public finances and left deficits and recession.<\/p>\n
The Ardern\u2013Hipkins Government has few enduring achievements. Gestures were mistaken for outcomes.<\/p>\n
Hipkins made no acknowledgement that Labour\u2019s ban on offshore gas exploration has contributed to rising energy costs \u2013 central to today\u2019s affordability crisis. Opposing a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal means domestic gas will run out.<\/p>\n
As supply tightens, electricity prices will rise.<\/p>\n
I declare an interest. My home uses gas. Converting will cost thousands that I will never recover. Multiply that across households and industry and the cost runs into billions.<\/p>\n
Removing a major energy source from a modern economy will be a huge economic shock.<\/p>\n
Hipkins says New Zealand can become a \u201crenewable energy superpower\u201d. It is a slogan, not policy. There is no example of a wealthy nation that has chosen to make itself energy-scarce.<\/p>\n
Luxon failed to acknowledge that National is spending and borrowing more than promised. Hipkins went further. Rather than explain how Labour would close the deficit, he proposed a Future Fund and a Climate Fund \u2013 presented as if they were new money.<\/p>\n
They are not.<\/p>\n
A fund is not savings unless the money exists. When the Crown is running a deficit, setting money aside means increasing borrowing.<\/p>\n
Every dollar put in a \u201cfund\u201d must be borrowed. Shifting money between columns of the Crown accounts does not lower the debt.<\/p>\n
Labour suggests State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) would help capitalise these funds. As the former Minister of SOEs, I know the books. KiwiRail cannot fund new rail ferries. Air New Zealand has required repeated financial support. There is no hidden surplus waiting to fund infrastructure.<\/p>\n
Hipkins still confuses intentions with results. Announcing a fund is not the same as funding it.<\/p>\n
I rated his speech two out of 10 for policy and eight out of 10 for politics.<\/p>\n
Seymour\u2019s address rested on three ideas: equal rights, positive-sum thinking and smaller government.<\/p>\n
He listed Act\u2019s claimed successes \u2013 from school-lunch savings to regulatory reform and funding new cancer medicines.<\/p>\n
Seymour alone addressed long-term structural pressures such as demographic change and the size of government.<\/p>\n
His remedy: equal citizenship, personal responsibility, less red tape and a leaner state.<\/p>\n
He proposes reducing the number of ministers from 30 to 20 and cutting ministries from 41 to 30 \u2013 abolishing what he calls vanity portfolios.<\/p>\n
It is unlikely to win applause from politicians seeking office.<\/p>\n
I rated his speech eight out of 10 for policy and six out of 10 for politics.<\/p>\n
Each leader offered a route to victory.<\/p>\n
Luxon needs growth to arrive.<\/p>\n
Hipkins needs it to fail.<\/p>\n
Seymour seeks a different agenda.<\/p>\n
But the election may turn on something simpler: what we pay when we switch on the lights \u2013 and whether they still come on.<\/p>\n