Source : the age
Both leaders lost a key point of the final debate of the federal election when a simple question produced two unbelievable answers.
The host of the Seven Network debate, Mark Riley, asked Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton if they could trust US president Donald Trump.
The prime minister hedged at first, and the opposition leader was more direct, but both conveyed an astonishing confidence in the White House. “I start, I think, with people on 100 per cent trust,” said Albanese. Pressed by Riley on whether Australia could trust Trump to “have our back” on security, the prime minister then said: “Yes.”
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton in a brief moment of good cheer ahead of a negative final debate.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
When the time came for Dutton to respond, he was even more sweeping: “We can trust whoever’s in the Oval Office.”
Few Australians would have given the two leaders any credit for this. The Resolve Political Monitor found this month that 68 per cent of voters believe Trump’s election has been bad for Australia. No sign of trust there.
Americans are sceptical, as well. A New York Times survey in the past few days found that 66 per cent of US voters see the Trump administration as chaotic. Those Americans do not seem to trust whoever is in the Oval Office.
The exchange on Sunday night went to the heart of the flaws in the debate: the move to skate over the bigger issues – like national security or economic growth – and to revert to talking points. At its worst, the debate was a wall of noise as Albanese and Dutton talked over each other.
They even engaged in a meaningless exchange about who might have Trump’s mobile phone number. Neither leader tried to take a deep breath, slow the pace and give a thoughtful answer that departed from their daily lines. Dutton was provocative on the Welcome to Country, saying he thought they were overdone.
Albanese played it safe in response. Any voter who dislikes the indigenous welcome would know to vote for Dutton. But will this really be the big issue for many voters? The debate was uneven, full of carping, and might not influence many voters.
Albanese knew the price of eggs better than Dutton, but it is hard to see that changing the election.
Albanese had a memorable moment when shown a picture of his holiday home at Copacabana and asked for a rapid response. “Marriage,” he said. His point was that the clifftop home was purchased equally with his fiancé, Jodie Haydon – and he noted that she had been “erased” from the media furore about the house.
It was his most personal answer of the night.
As with the three earlier debates of this campaign, the Seven debate was mostly a draw. Both leaders slugged it out on the economy. Neither leader was straight with Australian voters about national security. Dutton sought to provoke Albanese, but the prime minister did not snap back.
And the result? Dutton had sharper complaints about the cost of living, but Albanese had stronger lines about what to do next. “You have no solutions,” he shot at Dutton at one point.
Albanese repeatedly contrasted the temporary help from the Coalition – on fuel excise and tax – with the permanent tax cut from Labor.
Who won: Albanese was sound and consistent on the cost of living and the economy. This was enough – but only just enough – to give him an edge on an ordinary night.
It was billed as “The Final Showdown”, the last debate before election day.
The debates thus far have been so lacklustre that a new gimmick was required to heighten the drama.
Channel Seven supplied one by giving both party leaders a strict 60-second time limit on their answers, and putting a soundtrack of stagey music to their answers.
As their time ticked out, the music swelled to a crescendo.
It was similar to the way they attempt to wrap up Oscars speeches that go on too long, but with more discussion of gas reservation policy.
Conducting the orchestra was Mark Riley, who tried to do some real-time fact-checking, and to keep both leaders on track with their answers.
Much of what they said we had heard before, although we did learn that the Prime Minister does not have President Donald Trump’s mobile number, but only because he doesn’t think Trump has one.
“That’s not the way it works,” he told Riley, rather condescendingly.
Dutton interjected across the stage – did the Prime Minister have UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s number?
(A supplementary question: what does Albanese think Trump uses for his prolific social media posting? An iPad? Or does he buy the reports that Trump dictates his posts to more technologically savvy aides?)
Towards the end of the debate, things loosened up a little into a proper showdown, with some back and forth between the leaders.
“You’re going to wreck this economy if you keep doing this…and you’re doing it now,” Dutton interrupted the prime minister, as the latter discussed renewable energy.
“Peter can attack me, but I tell you what, I won’t let him attack the wages of working people,” the PM said.
An interesting moment came when both men were asked how much a dozen eggs cost. Dutton guessed $4.20, and Albanese said about $7.
The price is more like $8, but to be fair, it’s doubtful either man has been making pancake breakfasts much lately.
In a week, one of them will have more leisure time for such simple pleasures.
Verdict: this one was a dead heat.
Peter Dutton saved his best for last. Projecting strength and passion, he took control of proceedings several times by asking Albanese direct questions and interjecting to accuse the prime minister of misleading the audience at home and attack him over his management of the economy.
Dutton’s answers were sharp and declarative; he made a point of directly answering the questions he was asked rather than falling back on soundbites. A standout moment came when he was asked to name Australia’s greatest security threat and did not hesitate to name the Communist Party of China, referring to the intelligence and defence briefings he received when in government. His biggest stumble: not coming close to being able to name the price of a dozen eggs (nominating $4.20 rather than $8).
The topics pursued by debate moderator Mark Riley suited Dutton more than Albanese. Notably, there was no standalone section on health or climate change, which are areas of strength for Albanese and weakness for Dutton. Meanwhile, a lengthy section on Indigenous Welcomes to Country allowed him to re-litigate the failed Voice to Parliament referendum and sell himself as a unifying figure. “I will represent Australians whether they have been here for 60,000 years or whether they arrived 6 days ago,” Dutton said in a cut-through line that will appeal to many outer-suburban and regional voters he is targeting.
Albanese’s answers were substantial and detailed, packed with information about Labor’s policies to cut taxes, reduce HECS debts and boost housing supply. He also came far closer to correctly naming the price of a dozen eggs.
But he was more evasive than Dutton, saying that China was trying to increase its influence in the region but declining to directly address Riley’s “greatest security threat” question.
He also made a strange remark about whether Trump has a mobile phone (he most definitely does) and suggested it was rare for world leaders to text each other (they often do, including Albanese).
However, he gave a masterful answer with a prepared response to Dutton’s charge of being loose with the truth. I will let you attack me, Albanese said, but I won’t let you attack Australians’ wages or free TAFE or Medicare. And he skilfully branded Dutton a man with lots of complaints but no solutions, besides temporary measures like the cut to fuel excise.
Verdict: Dutton edged out Albanese with a punchy, energetic performance.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.
