Leaders’ Debate: No Gaffes, No Knockouts, Dull Show
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have faced off in the first leaders’ debate of the 2025 federal election. The debate, hosted by Sky News and The Daily Telegraph, was held at the Wenty Leagues Club in Sydney’s western suburbs, where an audience of 100 undecided voters asked questions of both leaders.
All the expected topics were canvassed, including the cost of living, the economy, housing, health and education, immigration, the war in Gaza, and of course US President Donald Trump. So how did the two leaders shape up? Three expert authors give their analysis.
Andy Marks , Western Sydney University
A funny thing happened on the way to the “people’s forum”. It reverted to a festival of rhetoric. The first federal election leaders’ debate between Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton began personably.
The Sky News debate saw Anthony and Peter – yes, first names only – take questions from the floor. It could have been the local sports team’s AGM. It wasn’t.
“Who’s doing it tough?” Sky News host Kieren Gilbert asked the audience. A sprinkle of hands, some reluctant, some defiant, rose.
“That was a very confronting scene,” Dutton remarked. “To see that many hands go up”, he added, reflected what he had seen throughout the government’s term: “people in tears” because they couldn’t cope with rising costs.
Albanese took a different approach. “Wages are up. Unemployment is low,” he said. The election, he argued, is about “what happens next”. The road ahead, he commented, was uncertain. “The world has thrown a lot of challenges at us. We’ve responded the Australian way.”
The focus was on ideal versus experience. “All you need is your Medicare card, not your credit card,” Albanese assured a questioner of his commitment to lift bulk-billed healthcare.
Dutton turned that proposition around, asking the questioner, “What’s your experience? Do you use your Medicare card, or your credit card too?” It was his most effective moment.
Albanese went full-Rudd zinger on energy. “The only gas policy the Coalition has is the gaslighting of the Australian public.”
When Albanese and Dutton were unleashed on each other, the debate descended into the usual contest over conflicting accounts of surplus records.
When it mattered, however – when audience members had the floor – it was a forum on what voters were experiencing, and which leader proved the better listener. That won’t be answered until polling day.
Andrea Carson , La Trobe University
Dutton faced a tough start to the first televised leaders’ debate of the 2025 federal election campaign, with reports his father had been rushed to hospital shortly before the cameras rolled.
But if he was rattled, he didn’t show it. Dutton wasted no time speaking to what he saw as Labor’s weaknesses, beginning with cost of living: power bills up, businesses going bust, grocery prices climbing.
Meanwhile, Albanese began with a few stammers, but quickly dispelled memories of his 2022 gaffes by confidently rattling off numbers that told a story of economic recovery amid the COVID-induced cost-of-living crisis.
With the primary vote share at record lows for both major parties, and with more Australians voting for minor parties and independent candidates, this is a crucial time to capture Australian’s attention before early voting opens next Tuesday.
Whether this debate reaches enough voters behind the News Corp paywall is questionable, but the debate’s soundbites will likely have a longer life than the 60-minute broadcast.
Using the tricks of the trade, Albanese repeated questioner’s names and thanked them for their service as school teachers and truckies, for caring for children, and for keeping Australia moving. He came ready with a well-worn prop – waving his green and gold Medicare card to spruik his plans to increase bulk billing for GP visits.
But Dutton wasn’t having a bar of it, stating he had seen the stunt before and that “the Mediscare campaign” continues. Albanese retorted by pointing to Dutton’s track record as health minister, claiming bulk billing was then in freefall. Women in the audience nodded in agreement. It was a little win for Albanese.
Predictably, both leaders kept to their areas of perceived strength: healthcare and education for Labor; the economy and keeping a lid on immigration for the Coalition. Both skirted the tricky question on the Gaza war – and avoided direct criticism of Trump.
The debate covered plenty of ground – solar power, fuel excise, cuts to universities’ foreign student numbers – but featured little mention of regional Australia or global security.
Albanese finished his pitch on a message of “staying the course”. Dutton returned to where he started: the economy, promising the Coalition could do it better, weaving in the threat of a Labor/Greens coalition government.
There were no fatal blows. Just like the polls, it was too close to call an outright winner. But not to worry. There will be another debate next week, this time on the ABC.
Emma Shortis , RMIT University
As someone who spends far too much time focused on US politics, it was a little bit refreshing to watch a debate that was a little bit … boring. Two blokes in suits, badly lit, talking about actual policy. In quite a bit of detail!
We often worry, with good reason, that Australian politics is being Americanised. Tonight showed that isn’t necessarily the case – in fact, the Trump administration’s dismantling of US democracy didn’t feature much this evening.
And there certainly weren’t many of the outrageous features of US politics – there was some bluster, of course, and some pretty concerning rhetoric around “immigration” – but this wasn’t anything like the corrosive, paranoid politics of America today.
Albanese opened the debate by noting that “the world has thrown a lot of challenges at Australia”, without mentioning the United States. That’s despite the fact the second Trump administration has effectively set the agenda of Australian politics for the past week at least.
But the very first question was about the “Trump pandemic”. Albanese was right to say in his response that Trump’s tariffs are an act of “economic self-harm” by the US. It does seem a stretch to suggest Australia got “a better deal” on tariffs because of representations made by the Australian government. Given what we know about the second Trump administration and its treatment of traditional allies, that seems unlikely.
Dutton once again made the argument that he would be better placed to negotiate with Trump because of his experience with Trump mark 1. But again, given how the Trump administration is treating America’s traditional allies, that’s not particularly convincing.
Surprisingly, the AUKUS submarine pact only got a mention right at the end. Albanese affirmed Labor’s support for the deal and said the government wouldn’t link the tariff issue to defence. That might be politically desirable, but it will be increasingly difficult as Trump continues to put pressure on the alliance. If Trump places no value in Australia’s free trade agreement with the US, what reason is there to believe he places any value in any other agreements?
As more and more attention is focused on what “security” actually means, those arbitrary dividing lines to which Australian politics has been so accustomed – such as the one between our defence and trade relationship with the US – might be becoming a little bit blurrier.
Emma Shortis is also Director of the Australia Institute’s International & Security Affairs Program.
Andrea Carson and Andy Marks do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.