The Great Debate was anything but

THE great health debate was anything but given the mismatch of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition leader Tony Abbott.

Superficially, it would be easy to say the worms produced by the 9 and 7 networks probably reflected the popular view that Rudd was the more acceptable face on the television screen. Rudd’s specialty is superficiality. Spin not substance, and that is what he delivered. Abbott appeared incapable of pandering to the audience which prefers the superficial and he paid for it. Rudd spoke in platitudes, delivered the same sort of Queensland country homilies which he used before his 2007 election victory, and probably appealed to the same unthinking viewers who accepted them then, even though they were later found to be untrue. Abbott zeroed in on Rudd’s record of broken promises and failed policies but this dissertation clearly depressed the network worms which began to slide whenever Rudd stopped talking. It was a contest of style over content, and Rudd’s more relaxed presentation designed to fit into the shorter response time permitted under the hastily drawn-up ground rules meant that he was unable to maunder into the usual convoluted sentence constructions that are a feature of his parliamentary replies. Rudd’s health plan has been sketchily outlined but viewers were left no wiser as to where ultimate responsibility with hospital management will lie, with the Commonwealth or the States. Rudd has shown through the failed Grocery Watch, Fuel Watch and disastrously lethal mismanagement of his pink batt insulation program that his government lacks the skills needed to operate programs of any complexity. But he presented himself as a benign leader, aware of the anxieties of the electorate and eager to ease the burdens suffered by the Mums and Dads at home. Abbott, who is not prepared to layout the detail of his party’s health policy before the election is announced, defended his record pointing out that under the Howard government and when he was Health Minister, the Budget increased substantially and that he did not rip out a billion dollars as Labor claims. He was relaxed about the detail of the health portfolio and showed that he knew his topic but the worm was unimpressed by his command of facts. The worm wanted to be stroked with honeyed words not hit with hard numbers. The worm leapt like a startled fowl whenever Rudd spoke of a bipartisan approach to policy but then worms have short memories. Rudd’s promises of bipartisanship have been found wanting whenever they are offered. The debate did not provide enough policy detail for a meaningful comparison of health policies to be made but it did leave a question hanging that should be answered before any further debates are staged. The question is for the networks, as their presentation of these events will affect the voters: Who turns the worm?