Albanese or Dutton? Our experts deliver their leaders’ debate verdicts

April 16, 2025 journo

The second debate ended with a clear winner after robust arguments over housing, nuclear energy, climate change and the American alliance. Anthony Albanese gained the edge in each of the key moments, even though Peter Dutton succeeded in getting some sharp lines through to voters.

Dutton was on the defensive more often than Albanese during a thoughtful ABC debate that tested them both. The most revealing moment came when the Opposition Leader admitted he made a mistake when he claimed on Tuesday that Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto had announced moves with Russia on an air force base. This was untrue.

Caught in the headlights on live television, Dutton had to admit it. Albanese then claimed the higher ground on national security.

The prime minister chose, wisely, to remain silent while Dutton was put on the spot about nuclear energy – a topic the Coalition seems to avoid on most days in this campaign. When Dutton cited the British government’s nuclear policy, Albanese was quick to cite the cost blowouts at the Hinkley project.

The prime minister did not have it so easy, however, when debate host David Speers asked him when power prices would come down under Labor. Albanese could not say – and simply looked evasive. In an odd moment, Dutton was unwilling to take a stand on whether climate change was real.

Instead, he said he would let scientists make that call. His answer might have satisfied his conservative base, but it was out of step with a majority of Australians.

When the debate turned to Donald Trump, the answers from Albanese were generally safe. He did not duck when asked if he would trust Trump: he said yes, and added that the US president had acted just as he said he would in their private conversations.

Dutton had to distance himself from Trump, and did so with force, but he veered into a minor argument about whether Albanese genuinely supported nuclear propulsion for submarines.

By the end of the hour, Albanese seemed more assured. Dutton did not get the victory he wanted, at the very point he needed to lift his campaign.

Verdict: Albanese

In the first 2025 election debate, Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton fought each other to a nil-all draw, and viewers were the losers.

What a difference a week can make. This was a serious debate and one in which both leaders gave unconvincing answers to detailed questions.

Housing opened the debate. Albanese focused on his government’s own policy proposals whereas Dutton started by criticising Labor before Speers asked about the regressive nature of his signature housing policy.

Dutton did not give a convincing answer when asked about the policy’s lack of fairness, while neither man gave an answer that will satisfy anyone who wants negative gearing and capital gains tax breaks scaled back.

Key moments in the second debate Credit: ABC Pool

Both said no changes are planned, but Albanese didn’t sound believable when asked whether negative gearing changes had been modelled by Treasury. “It certainly wasn’t commissioned by us” is not a convincing answer.

There were questions on the economy, Indigenous disadvantage, Donald Trump and foreign policy. But it was when the two men were asked what big political reform they would like to be remembered for that the debate was most revealing.

Albanese gave a boilerplate answer about his passion for access to affordable childcare, a worthy goal but not in the Hawke-Keating pantheon.

Dutton spoke about the centrality of affordable energy to the economy, which led to nuclear power, a policy he has barely spoken about during the campaign.

First, Speers fact-checked Dutton on his regular claim that Australia is the only G20 nation that hasn’t signed up to nuclear power or is already using it and Dutton pivoted to claim that Indonesian president Prabowo was “fully on board” with it.

(The World Nuclear Association says on its website that our near neighbour has a small Russian 10MW experimental reactor planned near Jakarta, but it is delayed).

Questions followed about whether there was sufficient water to cool nuclear power stations at the Coalition’s seven nominated sites – there is substantial evidence that there is not – and what type of plant would be situated where.

The opposition leader did not adequately answer and that is no basis for an economy-transforming energy transition.

This was a debate that exposed some of the long-term risks inherent in one of Dutton’s trademarks – the slightly exaggerated verbal drive-by – and how that can catch up with you, as we saw when he had to recant his claims about Indonesian support for a Russian base.

It revealed a gap between the prime minister and opposition leader in policy preparation and detail that will give some voters pause as they consider whether the Coalition really is ready to return to government.

Verdict: Albanese won this debate, though not by much.

Peter Dutton has put it on the record: “I don’t know the President. I have never met him…I don’t know Donald Trump”.

We were 40 minutes into the hour-long leaders’ debate, and the tariff-fancying elephant in the room was finally acknowledged.

For weeks Labor has been explicitly linking Peter Dutton to the enormously unpopular (in Australia) US president.

Dutton had not yet expressly denied the allegations of intimacy. Finally, he had his chance, and he took it.

And yet, here Dutton was, just a few minutes later, arguing that a government led by him would be better placed to negotiate an exemption to tariffs imposed by the US.

Was that due to some sort of special relationship, inquired debate host David Speers.

Dutton said it was based on past experience, but then he admitted to one of the most special relationships available to man – the golf buddy.

“We have an ambassador with this government who can’t get a phone call with the president,” Dutton said.

“We had an ambassador who used to play golf with him.”

It was a reference to former US Ambassador Joe Hockey who famously lost many a round of golf to Trump (he must have lost, because Trump never loses).

It was tricky terrain, but overall Dutton performed better than he did in the Sky debate last week. He was more relaxed and on-message, particularly when speaking about the Liberal value of homeownership and its importance to family formation.

The PM looked cagey on a few occasions – notably when asked, if renewables were indeed the cheapest form of energy as he claims, when would our power bills come down?

Albanese had to fudge that one, but in most other instances he was better able to articulate his policies.

He was able to reassure young Australians in particular, that he believes unequivocally in the science of climate change.

Dutton didn’t seem so sure – which won’t endear him to many voters in teal and Greens seats the Coalition needs to win back this election.

Verdict: Albanese by a whisker

First they neutralised each other’s cost of living policies by going tit-for-tat with bribes around the budget. Now they’ve neutralised housing, by offering competing ideas so similar that it takes a pen and paper to reckon through their competing merits.

This debate brought home that on these things, the two major parties have effectively cancelled each other out. No low-engagement voter is going to remember which party stands for which of the housing policies the prime minister and the opposition leader bandied about tonight.

Most voters won’t remember what the leaders said, but they will remember how the leaders made them feel. And on this front, the prime minister claimed the wedge.

The Coalition is stuck trying to explain how its energy policy will transform the economy and make it more productive. Despite trying hard over the past few weeks to free themselves of the chains of economics, the Coalition is still in the habit of trying to pay for things. Meanwhile, Labor has a killer pitch: if you love something, they will make it free. Never mind where the money comes from. Only the opposition will cut, according to Albanese.

Both leaders managed to cast a little shade on their opponent – in essence, that he is mad, bad, and dangerous to vote for. Dutton called the prime minister a liar and pointed out that his freebies will be paid for by young voters; Albanese attacked Dutton on foreign affairs and defence, undermining a key Coalition equity and seeking to reinforce the idea that Dutton is “Trumpy”.

But there is a more important set of audiences that both leaders clearly had in mind.

Their carefully rehearsed messages provided content for a multitude of little campaign warlords, commanding a crucial booth here, an impassioned issue there, or an antsy demographic subgroup. Unions will be speaking to their audiences about affordable childcare, developers to theirs about Dutton’s sledge on the CFMEU. Likewise on migration, renewable energy, nuclear, free TAFE and more – dozens of little bites to excite a handful of votes which could prove crucial.

These are the groups who will move molehills in an election contested in seat-by-seat combat. And if enough molehills move together, one or the other leader will be get a leg up in “climbing a mountain”, as the prime minister says, on election day. Albanese didn’t perform better on the night, but he won by providing TikTok soundbites for the next fortnight of campaigning.

Verdict: Albanese, for the algorithm

If I really have to pick a winner, it’s David Speers. Calm, firm and interrupted two endless gasbags without compunction. Loved that for us. He’s grown out of his Sky News vibes and looks right at home on the national broadcaster.

Speers completely skewered Peter Dutton on nuclear energy and water use. And when the Opposition Leader spoke at a million miles an hour, Speers interjected: “I”m just trying to clarify your plans, Mr Dutton.” If Speers gets sick of journalism, he would make a brilliant year-nine classroom teacher.

Sadly, he’s not in the competition so we have to pick from two middle-aged men in pastel ties.

Straight into housing. They both rehearsed well enough to remember their lines. In summary, we have supply guy versus use-your-super guy.

So what was memorable? Albanese’s demeanour. He’s transmogrified from a wet wimp into a politician comfortable name-dropping other world leaders as friends. In comparison, Dutton exuded “pick me” energy, talking too fast and struggling to stand up for the science. His desire to be forceful combined with his staccato delivery made him stumble a bit. Albanese seemed more relaxed, more fluent.

The most startling moment of the debate? Speers asked Dutton about climate change. The Opposition Leader replied, with a straight face, “I’m not a scientist,” though he did say he’d defer to their judgment. Dear god.

Both looked like liars, though. Albanese claims to trust Trump. And I got even more confused by Dutton who on one hand said he was critical of the US president’s treatment of Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky but he would also do a better job of dealing with Trump. It was a head-spinning answer.

I bring you this verdict replete with my own biases. I’m clearly a person with progressive views but Labor disappoints me on a regular basis. The Liberal Party will always be the party which enabled and accelerated robodebt. And now we know its leader is too timid to give a full-throated endorsement of climate science.

Verdict: Albanese wins. At least he recognises the science.

Peter Dutton went into this debate with a clear objective: downplay the hard man and play up the pragmatist.

That was evident in everything from his assured and measured speaking style to his timing. Unlike Albanese’s opening and closing statements that overrode moderator David Speers’ repeated attempts to enforce the time limit, Dutton kept his succinct. It showed a discipline his campaign has sometimes lacked.

Another example: after erring on Tuesday by claiming Indonesia’s president Prabowo Subianto had publicly confirmed reports Russia was seeking a debate in the country, Dutton admitted the mistake in the debate and moved on.

He was more credible than Albanese on Trump too, saying he trusted the United States but didn’t know the president.

Albanese, on the other hand, strained credulity to breaking point by claiming he had “no reason not to” trust the president, whose wildly mercurial approach to governing is obvious to anyone in possession of their senses.

When Albanese insisted his government had not commissioned modelling on winding back changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing — which this masthead revealed it had in September last year — Dutton was ready to pounce.

It reinforced one of his key narratives that Albanese can be loose with the truth.

Of course Dutton can be too — or so evasive it’s much the same thing. He lost points on climate, costings and housing.

But blessed with low expectations from a couple of rough weeks on the campaign trail, Dutton came out a narrow winner.

Verdict: Dutton clears the low bar.