Everyone a winner in debate but it all comes down to trust

Neither leader won by a knockout or on points. Scott Morrison won last night’s debate on policy, but Bill Shorten made a persuasive case for change.

The first Morrison-Shorten debate illuminated the essential issue of the election. What is the price of Shorten’s change agenda and is it the right sort of change?

The debate was tight, willing and pretty even. Yet the choice facing the country is dramatically different. “He won’t tell you the cost of change,” Morrison said at the end, pitching for the status quo. But Shorten declared it was “time to end the chaos” and warned the economy wasn’t delivering “for working people”.

There were three critical lessons. First, Morrison is remarkably effective in selling the harder brief — trying to convince people that “now is not the time to turn back” and to stay the course. Morrison, coming from behind, is giving the public more reasons to doubt the Shorten experiment.

Second, Shorten has more cogent material to work with in arguing the case for change. After years of Coalition instability, confusion, stagnant wages and climate change policy failure. “When you get a fair go in this country everybody benefits,” Shorten said. He made the convincing pitch that voting Liberal now was “the triumph of hope over experience”.

Third, this is a choice between conventional Liberal economic policy — with Morrison hammering the government’s record on job creation, tax cuts, the budget surplus and economic reliability — and Shorten’s appeal for a radical new social agenda with the focus being on the world’s best education and health systems, boosting wages and having the courage to act on climate change.

Ultimately, this election is about trust. Morrison’s problem is persuading people to believe in the government’s record. Shorten’s problem is persuading people his agenda will not compromise the economy and their living standards. Shorten was more effective on climate change, warning that the country couldn’t “keep ducking the issue”. Morrison was too defensive. He said “urgent action” was needed but his main argument was to stress the costs of climate change with signs the audience was with Shorten.

Shorten had the lethal line: “If they were fair dinkum on climate change, Malcolm Turnbull would still be prime minister.” But Shorten was vulnerable on franking credit refunds when he tried to insist no pensioner would be hurt, with Morrison reminding viewers of Shorten’s tendency to skate over or avoid the facts.

On wages and tax, Morrison had the better of the argument. “I think it’s dangerous when politicians say they can set your wages,” he warned of Shorten’s $10 billion commitment to childcare workers.

Shorten made his usual pitch on restoring penalty rates but Morrison was effective in arguing that the government would stick by the independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission.

Morrison was effective on taxation drawing the link between Shorten’s spending and tax agendas. “I am lowering all of your taxes,” Morrison said. On boats, Shorten went for frankness and honesty. “I accept boat turnarounds work,” he said. “I accept the lessons of the past.” It was a sensible admission of past failure.

Morrison was sharp, tough and not too aggressive. Both leaders pulled one another up and engaged in direct exchanges rare in these debates, but highly valuable. From the start they offered optimistic views of the future, but were drawn irresistibly to the power of the negative. Shorten stuck by his script — better health, better wages, better childcare, better schools. With the polls tightening Morrison looked confident and hammered the message — you can’t trust Labor on the economy. Shorten, a frontrunner under pressure, kept his nerve. But Shorten has more to lose at this point.