PETER VAN ONSELEN: Anthony Albanese stormed to victory in the first leader’s debate – but here’s why he’s not the REAL winner

While inevitably the travelling parliamentary press gallery will award this debate to the Prime Minister – reflecting the Labor bias of Canberra electorates when doing so – in point of fact it was won by Peter Dutton.

He highlighted the lack of sound economic management by the highest spending government in 40 years, citing the the wall to wall deficits forecast across the coming ten years.

Dutton even provided cogent reasoning for embracing nuclear energy, using the opportunity to remind voters that the PM promised to reduce energy bills by $275 at the last election, however power bills have increased by $1,300 instead.

Responding to Labor’s nuclear scare campaign was an important building block in this debate. Dutton cited country after country that uses nuclear power to demystify his plan, which in a pure debating sense was powerful. 

I’m just not sure if voters are listening.

The Opposition Leader also rebutted the notion that he’s a threat to Medicare, clarifying that bulk billing rates have in fact fallen since Labor came to power, not before. Albo looked uncomfortable when his Medicare arguments were turned against him.

All of that said, the first leaders’ debate was a largely lacklustre affair. And in between his regularly rehearsed lines, the PM made some good points too. For example, noting that his government delivered two surpluses when the previous Coalition government claimed that it would do so – but never did.

It’s a powerful retort to criticisms directed at Labor’s budget management. Dutton missed the opportunity to point out that those surpluses were driven by commodity price surges rather than any budget decisions taken by Labor.

Peoples’ forums can be difficult for incumbents because they are forced to defend their track record. This is especially hard during crisis times like we are living through now.

In this context Anthony Albanese did well, avoiding a knock out blow against him. The biggest threat he faced in this debate was having the campaign turned on its head. That didn’t happen.

But Dutton’s primary task was to arrest the decline in his ratings during the first week and a half of the election campaign and to start building momentum towards improving fortunes. He did that, even if he didn’t turn his fortunes completely around.

Albo’s inability to connect with mainstream voters was on full display. For someone who enjoys touting his working class roots, the PMs mannerisms were manufactured and his lines rote learnt.

They just weren’t engaging.

Peter Dutton was forced to get through this debate in the knowledge that his father had been rushed to hospital with a heart attack right before it started. A horrific situation all Australians can sympathise with.

Despite such trauma, he started well and managed to stay composed. The situation wasn’t mentioned during the live debate.

Albanese used the debate to claim he was aiming for majority government, which sounded strained when he did so.

It was his final pitch to voters.

Viewers believe Anthony Albanese won the first debate over Peter Dutton

Peter Dutton (right) provided cogent reasoning for embracing nuclear energy

But it backfired, because it opened the door to a discussion about the role the Greens might play if minority government beckons for Labor.

The ensuing discussion left Albo looking disingenuous when he claimed no deals would be made with the Greens.

In contrast the authenticity of Dutton’s rejection of doing deals with the Greens couldn’t have been more real.

Week two of the campaign now moves to seat by seat battleground electorates, with the expectation that both leaders will claim that they won the first debate.

That of course is the spin you expect in modern politics. But make no mistake, Dutton won this debate. He just didn’t win it convincingly.

Anthony Albanese addressed a crowd of 100 undecided voters at  the first leaders debate held at Wenty Leagues on Tuesday night