Election 2025: Experts’ verdicts: Who won Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton’s first debate
Shanahan, Benson, Sheridan, Harvey, Bramston, Kenny and Trinca analyse the performances of Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton in the first leaders’ debate of the election campaign.
Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton have faced off in the first leaders’ debate of the 2025 election campaign. Our experts deliver their verdicts.
Dennis Shanahan
The first debate of the 2025 campaign has set the tone for the next four weeks.
Anthony Albanese ensured that all Labor’s themes from a Medicare scare and nuclear dump were paraded in his first head-to-head contest with Peter Dutton responding with cost-of-living concerns and declarations of the need for safety and security in “precarious times”.
Importantly neither leader made any mistake and there was no stumble.
But, and this was important for the Opposition Leader who desperately needed to avoid any error or setback which would have lost him more momentum, Dutton appeared more confident and assertive.
It was clear cost-of-living and relief from the cost-of-living remains the public top priority while other issues such as the Trump tariff chaos and defence are still able to draw concerns and interest.
Dutton was the winner in presentation and interaction with the audience and he needed to be.
Simon Benson
Finally there is a contest.
After a shaky first week, Peter Dutton needed to lift. And he has.
The Liberal leader was the more assertive, relaxed but convincing interlocutor.
He was quick to rebut the dishonesty he accused the Prime Minister of engaging in over the Coalition’s education and health plans and Labor’s own record as the biggest spending government on record.
Both leaders presented with confidence but for the first time in the campaign, the Liberal leader had command of the economic argument.
He was across the detail, was given space to dissect Labor’s energy plans and had a personable appeal to the audience of undecided voters.
Anthony Albanese continued his more polished approach to this campaign but suffered from defaulting to Labor’s attack lines that Dutton quickly and convincingly unpicked.
He tried to steer the debate back to the Coalition’s now ditched working from home policy when given the opportunity but was put back on his heels from Dutton when the Prime Minister tried to interrupt his answers.
The Prime minister’s old smirks returned. This didn’t assist.
This was Dutton’s best performance so far during the campaign and for that reason alone he won the debate.
Claire Harvey
On bulk-billing, energy and folksy cheer, Albanese nailed it.
On migration, housing and crucial stats, Dutton won – and on values, he wiped the floor with the PM.
Asked why Australian taxes fund ‘genocide in Gaza’ Albanese began with “I certainly understand” Muslim Australians are traumatised. Not a word about Jews.
Dutton went straight to the principles: Hamas took the hostages. If it happened here, we’d send in the SAS. Firebombing is unAustralian. And if you come here, obey the laws.
Devastatingly simple – and no props required.
Troy Bramston
Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton were both focused, disciplined and on-message. The Prime Minister was more effective in noting the challenging economic times in which he governs, explaining his policy record and keeping it future-focused by noting what he would do if re-elected.
The Opposition Leader spent more time on Labor’s failures and defending the Coalition’s record than on his own plans for government, which is a missed opportunity.
It was on energy policy that Dutton was on his surest footing.
He explained his nuclear plan, the contribution it would make to energy supply, the benefits for industry and community. He was right to point out increasing power bills despite Labor’s promise to reduce them.
However, having to go to lengths to explain that the Coalition had not slashed funding for health and education when last in government shows the Labor line that the Coalition would again “cut” critical funding is getting through to voters.
There were few fireworks, no knockout blow and both leaders survived gaffe-free. Dutton came across as knowledgeable and committed to Australia’s wellbeing but too strident and forceful.
The winner was Albanese because he was more specific about his agenda for a second term and had a better grasp of facts and figures, even though his ghastly bright orange tie detracted from his presentation.
Greg Sheridan
By Australian debate standards, that wasn’t a bad performance by both Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton.
A lot of the core issues confronting Australia got no mention at all – economic reform, productivity, etc.
And one of the key issues, defence policy, barely got a mention.
A line from Kieran Gilbert (who did his usual top quality professional job) which didn’t get a response, and then a single line in Dutton’s concluding statement.
Either leader could have hurt themselves with a poor performance. Neither of them made a serious blunder.
It’s a narrow judgment, but I think Dutton had a narrow win.
It’s not likely to determine the result of the election, but coming from behind, Dutton probably made up some ground.
Helen Trinca
Too close to call, with the winners the audience members who bowled up intelligent and thoughtful questions reflecting the big issues confronting Australians.
Both leaders performed to type and there were no surprises in content or style in a debate which once again revealed them as competent rather than charismatic performers.
Peter Dutton started strongly with an opening statement that was conversational and direct. He efficiently hit his talking points – the Voice, power prices, and the need to get Australia back on track.
In contrast the Prime Minister delivered an opening script that felt more like a political press release. But neither man really inspired in early responses to questions from the floor.
The Opposition Leader had the edge early with a more forceful delivery: the Prime Minister was cautious on Gaza while Mr Dutton was happy to deliver a clear denunciation of Hamas and link the Middle East conflict back to immigration and national values.
The Prime Minister’s claim of talking to a trucker friend who opined on working from home was clumsy and fell flat but the debate moved up a notch as moderator Kieran Gilbert invited the leaders to question each other.
Mr Dutton went for the PM on the economy and viewers were rewarded with a more energised Mr Albanese who then scored on the Coalition’s nuclear policy.
Suddenly both men seemed to hit their stride.
Overall, Mr Dutton was more relaxed in his engagement with questioners, but the Prime Minister eventually followed his lead with more personal exchanges with audience members. In summary, this looked like a practice run for both sides, with just a chance we’ll see a more lively contest in the next debate.
Chris Kenny
Unfortunately, there was no stage at the Wenty Leagues Club, eliminating the possibility of a prime ministerial tumble (and denial) at the People’s Forum. Given the lack of highlights, this was an unfortunate oversight.
Neither leader took charge of the event to create a narrative for their cause. Peter Dutton went closest when he described the hands raised by those in the audience who were “doing it tough” as a “confronting scene” that demonstrated the cost-of-living crisis.
Anthony Albanese was sure-footed with his well-rehearsed lines of attack and defence. Much of this was based on spin and lies rather than facts, and Dutton did well to call many of them out – but much of this is likely to be dismissed by voters as politicians squabbling.
Tragically for our democracy, the biggest winner of the night was probably Clive Palmer and his bizarre “Trumpet of Patriots” outfit. Palmer paid to top-and-tail the forum with a two-minute advertisement urging voters to give up on the major parties – the root of the current malaise.
Dutton’s best moment was when he instinctively clarified with a questioner that she needed to use her credit card as well as her Medicare card for doctor’s visits, thus exposing Albanese’s glib Medicare posturing. Still, debates on Medicare are playing on Labor’s home ground.
The Opposition Leader also made a strong argument for why we need nuclear energy and probably should have gone to electricity costs more often. Albanese’s retort that the private sector will not fund nuclear energy was disingenuous given nuclear is currently banned in this country and renewables are heavily subsidised.
Dutton won the night on substance and facts and will hope it gives his campaign a boost. Albanese, however, skated through without major damage, so will be pleased.
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout