Federal Election 2022: Expert verdicts on the second leaders’ debate between Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese

Australian opposition leader Anthony Albanese (left) and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison go head-to-head in the second leaders’ debate. Picture: Getty Images

The Australian’s experts were divided on who won the second leaders’ debate … but they were united in their judgment that it was a spectacle unlikely to sway the public mood.

-

Paul Kelly — Editor-at-large

The Australian’s Editor-at-large, Paul Kelly.

This was a tight, squabbling and evenly contested debate between a damaged prime minister and a flawed Opposition Leader. It is unlikely to sway the public mood.

The limitations of both leaders were on abject display. Anthony Albanese’s worst moment was his unpersuasive claim he didn’t lie last week over the NDIS – a test of his character. Scott Morrison’s worst moment was his struggling over corruption and the integrity commission, an issue where the government cannot persuade.

Both leaders were evasive and dissembling in responding to questions about women’s issues. This was the most embarrassing section of the debate. Albanese was exposed when unable to explain his housing policy. Morrison’s response to questions on the minimum wage were unconvincing.

The PM admitted he got it wrong last year saying the vaccine rollout wasn’t a race, a necessary concession. Albanese stretched credibility insisting the Australian people knew what he stood for, an untenable claim. The mutual blame game over China was pathetic and counter-productive.

Morrison was too aggressive, not the right style for a PM. He also failed to answer directly and forcefully when asked if he would stand down under pressure in a minority government. This was a missed opportunity to project his strength.

If this debate had a real value it was the way it exposed the inability of government to control inflation, deliver real wages and contain power prices – highlighting the sheer lack of credibility of promises on these fronts.

-

Dennis Shanahan — National Editor

The Australian’s National Editor, Dennis Shanahan.

Scott Morrison won the second leaders’ debate on the basis of the numbers and the fact Anthony Albanese was given no room to dwell on the vibe.

It was the reverse of the first leaders’ debate.

The Prime Minister’s pitch was for a choice and he dominated on Budget, economics and policy. Even his debating interventions were a step up from the first debate.

Playing on his own unpopularity Morrison argued that times would be tough and that Albanese was “hiding in the bushes”.

The Opposition Leader harked back to the bushfires and floods of 2019 and 2020 but struggled on the policies for 2022 and 2023.

But, under the discipline of a professional array of journalists prepared to follow up and pursue questions inadequately answered or not answered at all there was more pressure for Albanese who had stumbled more than Morrison during the first four weeks of the election campaign.

Albanese suffered from Labor’s own weakness and was on sliding ground on housing policy, aged care and bullying women.

Given the debate was late on a Sunday, Mother’s Day it was probably not watched by a large number of people but those who did, apart from the party loyalists, will have seen a confident PM and a shaken Opposition leader.

-

Sharri Markson — Investigations Editor

The Australian’s Investigations Editor, Sharri Markson.

This second showdown between Anthony Albanese and Scott Morrison was heated, engaging and competitive.

Unlike the cautious, hands-off approach the leaders took in their first debate, this contest, held on the eve of the campaign’s final fortnight, was combative. The leaders have sharpened their attacks in the past month.

This debate reinforced the perception that Albanese struggles to grasp policy detail.

He wasn’t able to sufficiently answer questions over whether he’ll have enough nurses in aged care homes, on what he would do if a person earns more than the $120k threshold for his ‘home-to-buy’ scheme, on whether he could guarantee that wages will go up under Labor and why he has refused to hold an inquiry into allegations of bullying against the late Senator Kimberley Kitching.

Morrison’s advantage during this debate was not only his grasp of policy detail but also his numerous one-line zingers.

“You go back to work and you have to sell your house. It’s not ‘help to buy’, it’s ‘forced to sell’,” he retorted.

Then there was the sledge about Labor’s light agenda: “53 reviews, more than the number of policies you’ve announced.”

The shouty tone of the conversation, however, won’t enamour voters towards either leader who both suffer from a lack of personal popularity.

But it will focus voters’ minds on who they feel has stronger policies on national security, the threat of China, the economy, cost of living and integrity in politics.

-

Tom Dusevic — National Chief Reporter

The Australian’s National Chief Reporter, Tom Dusevic.

The gloves came off in the second leaders’ debate of the campaign.

Morrison and Albanese showed voters the capital mongrels they’re wisely missing by not tuning into the cage match of federal parliament.

The bout was messy, full of niggles and Alpha-male, index-finger emphasis. The referee was often ignored and the three judges were excellent in setting the terms of engagement.

Albanese came to rumble and struck immediate blows on the cost of living, the government’s open sore after the Reserve Bank’s decision last week.

But Morrison had a concealed weapon, the club that Labor had “more reviews than policies”.

In the clinches, nasty and unbecoming, there were a series of cheap shots. It was hard to say who got under the other’s skin more, but they smiled a lot through gritted teeth.

Morrison put up a shield of numerical precision and endless policy factoids. Albanese led with his chin on China

They were each offered a couple of free hits at their opponent.

Albanese whacked Morrison on vaccines and the minimum wage; Morrison smacked Albanese on policy flip-flops and the proposed shared equity housing scheme.

And each of them drew blood, as the Labor leader struggled with negative gearing and the Prime Minister lost his footing on the Port of Darwin

Both dodged and wove on debt and taxes; we are no wiser about how productivity and living standards would get a proper boost.

I scored it like a boxing match, an opening, 17 rounds, and the closing statements.

Albanese started with a flourish, kept coming as the active aggressor, and he simply landed more rhetorical punches. A clear victory to the Opposition Leader.

-

Ticky Fullerton — Editor-at-Large, The Australian Business Review

Ticky Fullerton, The Australian Business Review’s Editor-at-Large.

Anthony Albanese won this debate and in large part it was about demeanour.

Forget the facts. When it came to the argument on the big issue of a cost of living election and real wages, Morrison’s line that the Government’s record low 4 per cent unemployment and a strong economy would deliver a stronger future left the viewer feeling short changed.

Albanese’s pledge to increase productivity – something bizarrely the PM didn’t even mention as an objective during the debate – through Powering Australia, fixing the NBN and childcare sounded on point. Sadly these were pledges that was not scrutinised. Real productivity creating reform is not up for debate.

The debate was scrappy and almost unwatchable in parts, but from the starting 90-second pitch it was a relaxed and comfortable Labor leader Anthony Albanese talking up a Better Australia.

Scott Morrison defended his record, but more defensively than in the first debate.

Albo cut through with his line on the cost of living being about money in and money out. And he returned to cost of living in his wrap up with the ‘right now’ crisis around insecure work and the cost of living crisis.

Energy policy and Labor’s pledge to lower electricity bills by $275 by 2023 became a muddle of banter around transmission, too hard to follow. But only the PM, not Albanese was asked about energy policy and Labor got off very lightly there.

Topics like China and defence and personal character were indignantly contested and there was no cut through.

Albanese’s question around the Government’s handling of Covid was wasted and rear view mirror, but his second question was again on the minimum wage, again pushing cost of living.

The PM was at his strongest with his question around Albanese and Labor’s flip-flopping on policy positions.

This was a different debate from the first with the media in charge of questions rather than grassroots undecided voters. But this debate was so uninspiring on leadership for this great nation.

It is a sad reflection on the debate when Labor’s pledge to create productivity from faux reform is enough to win the day.

-

Alice Workman — Strewth Editor

Alice Workman, The Australian’s Strewth Editor.

Nail biting. Inspiring. Strong plans that hold up under pressure. But enough about Sunday night’s episode of LEGO Wars.

Let’s talk about the second showdown between Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese. Who will win the titanium brick of triumph?

It was a choice, we were told, between ScoMo’s “stronger future” vs Albo’s “better future”.

The Great Debate kicked off with the soaring cost of living. Both leaders were flogged with warm $5 lettuce, but neither directly answered how they would be able to bring prices down.

Morrison made the first stumble, suggesting voters need to plump for “uncertainty and under-certainty”. Albanese delivered the first zinger, suggesting the Coalition has “sincerity of a fake tan.” He’s used that one before.

With a strict 60 seconds on the clock, viewers suffered whiplash and they sped from one topic to another without much room for scrutiny: wages growth, interest rates, unemployment, child care, power prices, cheaper medicine, balancing the budget, power prices, vaccine rollouts, young people, aged care and the definition of “a woman”.

There was even 60 seconds for both leaders to talk over each other - “that’s not right”, “yes it is”, “no it’s not”; followed by, “yes it will”, “no it won’t”, “yes it will”, “no it won’t”.

The six LEGO teams, under the watchful eye of Hamish Blake, built an aspirational secret city on Sunday. Yet neither leader stacked up more than a worn out stump speech on 60 Minutes.

To quote The Brickman: “Imagination can’t be bottled. You can’t buy it. You can’t learn it.”

Albanese was left shitting bricks after he still couldn’t articulate his six-point NDIS plan. And Morrison was sweating after those texts and that submarine deal led to claims that “a lot of people don’t like you”.

In a spit take moment, the prime minister claimed he had never seen any corruption on his side of politics and accused Labor of “hiding in the bushes” over a federal ICAC.

At one point the men were left to argue among themselves. What’s the thinking here, assuming there is any?

Well, there can only be one winner. Imagination, creativity, with an extremely well-executed vision. Congratulations … Alex and Caleb. Sorry, that was LEGO Wars.

The winner – Albanese by an elbow.

The loser – The “Great Debate” format.