When Albo and Dutton can’t just insult each other and dodge questions, their innate differences become clear

The absence of petty back-and-forths between Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton in the ABC leaders’ debate made their differences clear, writes James Morrow.

Strip away the bluster of both Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton and their clear preference for attacking each other rather than answering a question, and one thing stands out.

More than anything else, Wednesday night’s leaders’ debate on the ABC crystallised the choice on offer and the conflict of visions between the two men.

Put simply, the debate was a contest between doom and dependency.

On the one hand, opposition leader Peter Dutton was keen to catalogue the impressive list of failures of the Albanese government: business failures, families that can’t pay their bills, a million new migrants exacerbating the housing crisis.

Doom, doom, doom, all the way down.

On the other, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was there to pitch his solution to these and every other problem one might encounter in life: more government, more spending, more involvement of the state in every aspect of Australians’ lives.

In other words, an Australia where everyone is more dependent than ever on the government, the private sector is crowded out, and economic reform becomes impossible because no one will vote to take benefits off themselves.

Put simply, the debate was a contest between doom and dependency. Picture: Matt Roberts

The difference was clear early on in a discussion about housing and the economy.

Albanese talked about more “future funds” (don’t dare call them slush funds), more public housing, more build to rent, and government deposit guarantees.

Dutton parried by listing off all the failures, from population growth to CFMEU thuggery driving up building costs.

But if Dutton was all doom and gloom, Albanese was hardly sweetness and light.

An early declaration by the Prime Minister that “because of the hard work Australians have done … we’re turning the corner” quickly turned to personal attacks.

Dutton, for as much as he tried to talk policy, also seemed to prefer whacking Albanese, much to the frustration of moderator David Speers.

Both had tough moments: Albanese refused to answer when power prices would come down, and Dutton was shown up over the question of whether he trusted Donald Trump (the prime minister diplomatically said he had no reason not to, something that if Dutton had declared would have been instantly turned into a Labor attack line).

And Albanese looked shifty on a number of occasions, particularly when he couldn’t give a straight answer to a question about whether he’d modelled getting rid of negative gearing.

But the real key moment was when both men were asked what they wanted their legacy to be.

Anthony Albanese said “childcare” – more dependency.

Peter Dutton said “energy” – without which, more doom.