Editorial: Subsequent scrutiny

The most we should have expected from the first leaders' debate of the election was that it might raise, rather than answer, the right questions.

The constraints of the format kept John Key and Phil Goff splashing around in the showoff shallow end of the policy pool.

Hardly their fault. When either man showed signs of moving into deeper waters, they were hauled back in by the next big question requiring a 45-second answer. Hence the unedifying moment when what was almost a debate on child poverty was abandoned because of the apparently urgent need to know how these two would redesign the national flag.

Analysts during the debate were not fleet enough to challenge the protagonists about the accuracy of their contentions, which left the two protagonists to gainsay each other.

This did not make it simply a trite spectacle. It mightn't have been all that edifying, but it may prove useful in terms of the aftermath. The leaders can subsequently be pulled up on what they said, either to defend it or explain it better.

They do have some explaining to do. Mr Goff branded Mr Key a liar for having denied he would raise GST and then doing so. Mr Key maintained the promise was more precise – that he wouldn't do so to balance the books, and that, sure enough, he hadn't. The rise had been a "fiscally neutral" because it was accompanied by lowered income tax.

Mr Key is now being challenged, reasonably enough, by the recorded text of his promise, which isn't couched in the caveat he recollects, and Labour has ammunition to challenge whether the two tax moves were even close to fiscally neutral anyway. Mr Key will also face further discomfort from previous Treasury warnings that sit badly alongside his assertion that the country can afford not to raise the superannuation age from 65 to 67, and the chicken-and-egg question of whether his stance is influenced by his famous promise to resign rather than toughen up super requirements.

In other cases, statements that resonate on the night can later be put in better context. Make what you will of Mr Key's defence of proposed welfare changes as helping protect teenage girls on the DPB from being subject to the predations of unscrupulous males wanting to get their hands on their dole money, but it is surely worth remembering, as Left-wing commentators have been pointing out, that barely more than 3 per cent of those on that benefit are under 20.

Mr Goff, meanwhile, exits the debate needing to do more to address what Mr Key was able to portray as still-unanswered questions including how Labour would spend more than National without taking longer to bring the Government's books back into surplus. Mr Goff also needs a more persuasive defence to the criticism of the extra costs Labour would impose on business.

When the leaders were asked to 'fess up to their worst mistake, Mr Key put his hand up for nothing worse than bad communication in the case of the replacement ministerial limousines, whereas Mr Goff donned a much itchier hairshirt over his role in past asset sales. Again, context for the casual observer emerged later. Mr Goff sold 17 assets. He'll be hearing more about that, as the campaign continues.

Seen as a presidential-style event, Mr Key and Mr Goff finished pretty close together. National will claim this as a good result, given the still-extensive gap between the two parties in the polls. Labour will present it as evidence of a campaign gaining traction.

Voters should see it as a useful day on the campaign trail, from which to help calibrate their views, if they haven't already.