Albanese v Dutton: The second leaders’ debate

You two have known each other a very long time. I've witnessed you both over the dispatch box in Parliament. You're able to have a chat. You seem to get on. I just want to ask.

I don't want you to ever state it so for the kiss of death for both.

What I wanted to ask is it would really be a disaster for the country or is this just a bit of political hype if the other guy won.

Mister Albanzi, I think there are very different values that we have.

In the second leader's debate last night, those different values and the two leaders opposing visions for Australia were stark.

I'm really optimistic about Australia's future if we seize the opportunities that are right in front of us.

Anthony Albanesi continued his pitch to voters that they should trust him with another term.

Well.

Peter Dutton continued to press the line that Australians have gone backwards.

As we approach the third of my many Australians will be asking themselves are you better off today than you were three years ago?

And around, But Albanie and Dutton were united on one thing. Neither leader really landed a blow or won the night from Schwartz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven AM today. My co host Daniel James on the biggest moments from the debate, from energy to housing, to diplomacy and defense, and why Dutton has had to admit another mistake. It's Thursday,

I thought Albanzi was able to speak to his plan a little bit more clearly. He was able to mention things directly, like building one hundred thousand year homes.

What we have is a reservation of one hundred thousand homes just for first home buyers. That will give them an opportunity because they won't be competing with investors.

And we see that the five percent deposit.

Now a five percent deposit rather than twenty will mean that instead of paying off someone else's mortgage, they can pay off their own mortgage.

Whereas Dutton's planned around being able to claim tax rebates on interest rates paid for mortgages is a little bit more convoluted and difficult to cut through.

For the first six hundred and fifty thousand dollars of your mortgage that will be interested, you could claim against your income. So for an average couple that will be about eleven or twelve thousand dollars a year over five years.

It'll be a lot more for high income. But they were both also not willing to go near things like negative gearing.

Neither of you seem willing to touch the negative gearing or capital gains tax breaks at this election. You've both been property investors over the years. Can you understand younger Australians locked out of the market feeling that it is people like you who are to blame for the fact that systems rigged against them. Mister Albinezi, Well, could I make this point David.

And both lives not willing to go near it with a barge pole.

Yeah, And there was this question that was put to both men around what they'd want to be remembered for if you know, they were the Prime minister for the next three years and Dutton's answer was basically, energy policy.

Energy use, the economy. David, everything we use, everything around us is either running or has been created because of the use of energy farming.

So what's your read on which leader had the most realistic and best version of our energy future.

I'd have to say that neither leader was particularly convincing when talking about their own energy policies. Dutton really struggled with being able to explain the detail about how much water would be used for modular reactors compared to the larger scale nuclear reactors.

I mean, we could spend all night on what I think it's really improve. Yes, but but there are different depending on the small modular reactor as well, and obviously the size of the as to the amount of water that's required of the.

Large reactors you're talking about, and you've got one plan.

When David Spears pressed to Alban Easy on when he's planned for renewables would bring down the cost of energy prices for consumers, he couldn't nentwer.

That Peter Ray's gas is now thirteen dollars. It was thirty dollars, and when we came off, thirteen is cheaper than thirty.

When do we see the bill come down.

Well, what we need to do is to roll out renewable, to make sure there's energy security, make.

Sure which is pretty symptomatic of the way that this entire sort of election is being run. Both leaders, when it comes to the cost of living in particular, really seem to struggle around the edges as to what their policies would mean for people in everyday life.

Coming up after the break, Peter Dutton is not a scientist. Let's turn to foreign policy. That is where Albanize started to make this case that Dutton was being reckless or immature in his responses to world events.

Diplomacy means engaging seriously in a calibrated, serious way Indonesia with respect as we do other nations that we deal with.

Do you think that he landed that idea.

We've had the big funeral in the last seventy two hours around Dunton claiming the Indonesian President I had spoken about having Russian military resources placed in Indonesia, something that the Indonesians have refuted and there is no actual evidence of the president actually having said that. It plays into a broader narrative around Dutton around being a ball in a China Shop for one of a much better phrase.

I think the way that Dutton spoke about his previous comments around Russia and Indonesia was interesting. He admitted that he had made a mistake.

So was that a mistake? It was a mistake and I'm happy to a bit what we've got.

This is not the first time we've heard an apology from Dutton. Last week it was about his position on working from home. So what does this say to you, this kind of walking back, this apology for things that he said. What does that say to you about how Dutton is handling himself at this point in the campaign.

It shows that his campaign is not going so well that he's actually, i would say struggling in this moment to be able to cut through, provide a clear narrative and made up to his own expectations of as being seen as a strong man in a time when we here in Australia are looking abroad to see what other strong men are doing around the globe. His traditional strongman approach is now a double edged sword for him.

Yeah, and there was no whether that was more evident in the way that he spoke about Donald Trump. So he wouldn't really answer the question as to whether or not he trusted Donald Trump, which was interesting. But at the same time he was also trying to make this case that he could have gotten Australia out of the tariffs that Trump is imposing. So he's walking this very very tricky line. There isn't he you know? Is he or is he not close to Trump? What is the message that was supposed to take.

I don't think there's anyone in the country that thinks that Peter Dutton isn't more closely aligned to the politics of Trump than he has led on during this campaign. He was asked on a couple of occasions by David Spears whether he trusted Donald Trump, and his line was, well, I haven't met him.

I'm not going to say you trust I don't know. I don't know Donald Trump is my point. My point is that who I trust is the Australian people in my job.

He has asked the same question about the Chinese president, gig Ping.

Again, I don't know the president of China, but I believe very strongly in the relationship.

Alberanzi was using the office of the Prime Minister to say, well, I've dealt with both men and I have no reason not to trust either.

We have different political systems and that means different values, and we have very different values with China. But what I've said is we'll cooperate where we can, we'll disagree where we must.

Pointing out, of course, that the Morrison government had no diplomatic contact with the Chinese regime throughout their three years of government.

There was no contact, no funatraals, no meetings, no trade well.

There wasn't diplomatic for its well in terms of the trade relationships.

So there was a point that Alberanzi was able to score. But for Dutton, it's a particularly tricky line in that he doesn't want to be seen to be too close to Trump, but he also wants to highlight the fact that he is better placed than Albanzi to be able to deal with the Trump presidency, which is a very very very fine line to work.

Yeah, And there was this other really interesting moment, Daniel, where Peter Dutton he said that he does believe in climate change, but he sort of refused to link it to more regular extreme weather events, saying, you know, I'm not a scientist.

We need to it is getting worse.

Well, I'll leave others to you think, Eric, Well, I'll let scientists and others pass that judgment, but.

Really not willing to say this is climate change happening right now?

Well, as the Prime Minister refused to do the other day to make comment in this regard as well. I don't know, David, because I'm not a scientist and I can't tell you.

Whether do you think that this really ultimately tells us anything about Peter Dutton or about Anthony Alban easy that we didn't know about their different approaches.

I think that was a striking moment in the campaign. There was enough said by Dutton, enough intimated by him to raise the question as to well, does he believe in climate science? Does he believe that severe whether events are occurring more commonly now because the climate is changing. I don't want to give the Prime Minister too much credit for his response either, but he said obviously that he does believe in climate science.

The cost to our economy as well as the cost of our environment of not acting on climate change, not being a part of the global solution severe.

And if there is a large proportion of the community and the electorate that are concerned about both major parties climate policies, Glutton's refusal to go full in and respect the science around climate for me was a pretty big moment.

Yeah. Another big moment I think is when both leaders were asked about Indigenous affairs in Australia and David Spears he pointed out the fact that night a leader has actually visited an Indigenous community during this campaign so far. Meanwhile, the gap widens on many fronts.

Neither side of politics has done well enough for First Nations people. That's just a fact and that's something that breaks my heart.

What did you think as you listen to Anthony Albernesi defend his post voice plan for Indigenous affairs.

Well, you know with this one, I've got a bit of skin in the game. Of course. What it speaks to is that Labor and Anthony Alberzi, well, so much political capital during the referendum that they do not want

Daniel is finally, who do you think? In this debate ultimately made the most coherent, the most convincing, the strongest case as to why Australians should vote for them.

It has to be said that both leaders acquitted themselves very well. Peter Dutton, as we got towards the end of the debate, became stronger. He was very clear about his vision about making Australia a more prosperous country, a safer country.

I want to make sure that we can invest into defense and make sure that we can take crime seriously and reduce the problem of crime as it exists in our communities, in our suburbs across the country. My vision for our country is to make us a safer.

Crime in Victoria and in Melbourne in particular, in our lectures that he needs to win in outer suburbs is a state issue, but is an issue that is on the screens of Victorians every night and day. And even though his ability as a prime minister or a federal leader is somewhat limited to that, to be able to cast himself in a position where he can intimate he will have an impact on crime rates was something that I think he was able to weave in quite clearly

Well, Daniel, thank you so much for your time.

Thank you Rerby. Good to speak to.

You as always. Also in the news today, the UK Supreme Court has ruled in favor of gender critical rights campaigners and against the Scottish government over the definition of a woman. Five judges ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates. The ruling will transgender women will not be able to sit on public boards in places set