Election 2025: Experts’ verdicts: Who won Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton’s third debate
Benson, Sheridan, Kenny, Trinca and Bramston analyse the performances of Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton in the third leaders debate of the election campaign.
Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton have faced off in the third leaders debate of the 2025 election campaign. Our experts deliver their verdicts.
Simon Benson
The third leaders debate, on balance, was a draw for policy and performance. As a test of temperament, both pushed the boundaries. At least it was a more animated affair this time.
As the frontrunner now, Anthony Albanese’s primary task was to get through this debate without error or anger.
Labor will feel it needs to protect its poll lead.
Peter Dutton, on the other hand, needed to make a greater impression. The Liberal leader is justifiably frustrated with the negative campaign that Labor is running. And it showed.
With nothing to lose, he elevated his attacks on Albanese as a leader who couldn’t “lie straight in bed”, which drew the expected response from the Prime Minister that Dutton was now resorting to abuse.
The third debate has elevated the battle of character as a key determinant alongside cost of living. Both leaders will feel that they achieved what they sought to.
Greg Sheridan
The answer is, it was another draw. In a deeply ordinary debate, perhaps the sweetest moment came when Peter Dutton said really I’m soft and caring, and Anthony Albanese claimed really I’m tough and strong.
A lot of Australian politics is like a photo negative; you have to look at the absolute opposite of what you’re presented with to work out the shape of things.
I don’t think there was an overall winner in this debate.
Some of the questions weren’t bad. The panel had a reasonable night.
The last debate I saw as essentially a score draw, like a one-all soccer game, albeit not exactly in the Premier League.
This was a little less exciting.
Even the energy debate was a repeat of the stuff from the past. Dutton was a little better in talking about the overbuild that wind and solar require, but he didn’t explain why you need an overbuild, because the renewables are intermittent.
So maybe it was nil-all, like the campaign overall.
A nice, if corny, wrinkle at the end, with each saying something positive about the other.
Worth watching overall. Certainly for a conscientious citizen. But nil-all is pretty well always dull. You’d always hope for something better.
Chris Kenny
Peter Dutton towered over Anthony Albanese in the third leaders debate but probably did not do enough to flip the bar graph of their respective votes. Much of what we heard has become all too familiar but given the distracted nature of this campaign both leaders will have been keenly aware that many viewers might have heard these messages for the first time.
Dutton did well to twice invoke high immigration and Labor’s undeclared “big Australia” policy as exacerbating stresses on housing, infrastructure, health and education. Albanese hammered his claims about possible Coalition cuts.
Asked to call out each other’s lies we saw the Opposition Leader list a range of Labor claims on nuclear costs, power prices and Medicare, telling Albanese he “couldn’t lie straight in bed”. The Prime Minister responded that this “abuse” showed “desperation”.
Sandwiched between Easter holidays and the Anzac Day long weekend, fighting for coverage against the death of Pope Francis and Farmer Wants a Wife, this debate still needed to provide a springboard for the Coalition, and it probably failed to do that. It will not have done Dutton any harm, to be sure, but he is running out of time to create real momentum and did not dent Albanese’s cockiness.
Perhaps the most damaging line of the night was a case of self-harm from Albanese. He won office promising to lower the cost of living, reduce mortgage costs and cut electricity bills by $275 a year, and noting his failure on these pledges Albanese was asked whether he again would promise to make Australians better off.
“We certainly want people to be better off in three years’ time,” the Prime Minister said, reflecting hope rather than promise. Clearly his ambition has been checked by reality, and he has learned not to promise too much lest he be lucky enough to have his pledges assessed again after a second term.
Helen Trinca
Just for a moment there, it looked as if we were in for some good old-fashioned biffo as the Prime Minister accused the Leader of the Opposition of opting for abuse rather than the facts on bulk billing. A lively interchange between Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton was just what we needed on the first day back after the Easter break. Sadly, the leaders thought better of it as moderator Ally Langdon pulled them apart (metaphorically) and we settled into what threatened to become the most boring of the three debates this election.
The four journos on deck tried hard to get it going but they were on a hiding to nothing with those big picture questions about failure of imagination/leadership/character/courage. Why? Why? Why? Why weren’t the leaders, well, just better, more exciting? Why did they stick to talking points? Why did they play safe?
Not surprisingly the leaders did the only thing they could, which was to fudge, feint and wait for the bell.
Things warmed up when the debate moved offshore to Donald Trump and other seismic threats; the PM bested Dutton on this one, warning against complacency and recognising the complex international forces we face.
By the time we got back from the ad break (those political ads notably more entertaining than the real thing in the studio) the leaders seemed marginally re-energised. We’d been promised “something different” in the second half but seemed to end up with more of those unanswerables.
Mr Dutton, people say you’re not soft enough: please explain. PM, people say you’re too soft: please explain?
On we went with Albanese marginally ahead through all the regular suspects on policy till, just when the debate looked to be one debate too many, Langdon went for some “yes” or “no” questions and the leaders looked increasingly bouncy and friendly.
By the final minutes, asked to say something nice about each other. They did – and looked as if they really meant it. Both had to be declared winners on that one. And while biffo was definitely off the table, the PM leaned in, suggesting that both men were punching above their weight when it came to their life partners. It might well have been the best line of the night in a debate which did not add much to a campaign that seems to have decided it’s time for more ad breaks. So, it’s the PM – on points.
Troy Bramston
Peter Dutton won a narrow victory in the third debate. He appeared sharper than in previous debates.
He was effective on cost-of-living pressures, the housing crisis and rising energy costs. He used facts and figures to illustrate his arguments, and his critique was more effective than in the past. But he could have won a more convincing victory if he balanced this with a more detailed policy agenda of his own and a clearer vision for why he wants to be prime minister.
I found Anthony Albanese a little more subdued than in previous debates and not as quick in rebuttal. He did not make any mistakes or gaffes. He resorted too often to key lines and attacks used before, including moments earlier in the same debate. I was looking for fresher language.
Albanese came across as solid and across his brief but not with much new to say and even a little tired, although he did become more spirited in the second half of the debate.
When asked to outline his vision and key policies, Dutton underwhelmed with a rather limited and piecemeal agenda. Albanese did better in explaining how policies underpinned his political values and was effective on foreign and defence policy. Maybe both leaders will be bolder on policy in the final debate on Sunday.
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout