KEY POINTS:
It's not hard to understand that TV3 would have felt a bit miffed when PM Helen Clark and National leader John Key torpedoed its leaders' debate by jointly refusing to take part.
But it is both unfathomable and unacceptable that the broadcaster then threw its toys out of the cot and cancelled the debate altogether. The network said the leaders' stance left it with "no choice". But it sells its viewers short.
The leaders' "debate" - if one can apply that name to soundbite platitudes - cannot offer intelligent discussion when it must accommodate all eight parties. TV3 knows that, which is why it tried - and failed - to exclude United Future leader Peter Dunne and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton from a debate before the last election. Leaders of the minor parties - in particular Dunne, who seems to generate noise out of all proportion to his significance in the scheme of things - have been predictably shrill about what they see as a jack-up. But whether they like it or not, this is a two-in-one election.
Voters face a choice, every bit as stark as last time, as to which of the two major parties they want to lead the next Government. One of those parties may win handsomely enough to govern alone - though that is by no means certain; the other will certainly need the support of two or more coalition partners. Meanwhile, the claim of the minor parties to inclusion in a coalition deserves public scrutiny.
These are two distinct matters and warrant consideration in distinct forums. Key and Clark are right to take the view that the substantive debate they need to have cannot be held in the "beauty contest" line-up of the past. TV3 is entitled to disagree with that view, but it forgets its remit as a broadcaster if it refuses to not stage any debate just because its proposal was rejected.
