Live on Sky News. This is Sharry.
Good Evening.
Well, it's a major week of political debates and we just saw Jim Charmers and Angus Taylor go head to head. Both politicians were sharp, precise and on message. Chalmers accused Taylor of planning secret cuts to pay for a six hundred billion dollar nuclear plan, while Taylor said the Treasurer had overseen the greatest decline in living standards in Australian history. This is a cost of living crisis. With Trump's trade tariff's causing global havoc and inflation still biting, the economy
is the central issue impacting every single Australian. Now voters will decide who they trust to run the country and even tonight. In this debate, Angus Taylor, while he performed extremely well, he struggled to nail Jim Charmers all the Albaneze government for how the stand of living has collapsed, for how energy prices are soaring despite the government in
opposition promising the opposite, and for their wasteful spending. Angus Taylor and Dutton will be judged if they fail to comprehensively prosecute the case against Charmers on these fronts and not just tonight, where as I said, Taylor performed very well, but in the campaign more broadly.
Now, the standout.
Moment tonight was when Ross Greenwood asked the treasurer if he'd apologize for promising that energy prices would fall by two hundred and seventy five dollars. Chalmers said, he takes responsibility, but he stopped shot of saying sorry, Will you.
Look down the battle of the camera and apologize for that, because he's at something you should do, because again, that was a promise, it was not fulfilled.
Well.
The two hundred and seventy five figure that you're referring to from the modeling in twenty twenty one predated two important developments. The first one was angusin devine to hide a big price rise before the last election. We didn't know about that when we talked about that modeling. And the second thing is there's been a major land war in Eastern Europe which has caused a global spike in energy inflation.
In fact, Chalmers was twice asked to apologize to voters for promising a lower cost of living before the last election, and Taylor put this to him as well, but again he didn't apologize. In return, Chalmers asked Taylor to promise that he wouldn't cut essential services.
Yes, and Peter Button have both said the best indicator of future is what's happened in the past. Now, in their first budget, after promising no cuts to health and education, they cut eighty billion dollars of health education. And that's why he won't answer this question.
And this is the heart of Labour's attack against the Coalition during this campaign, that it would cut health education and medicare.
Now.
Another key moment tonight was when Ross green would ask Angus Taylor if he didn't put enough work into his own job.
Question is some people suggest that maybe you don't put the work in You maybe have heard that as well. What's your own sense of that?
Well, you know, there's lots of free advice.
And in turn, Russ Greenwood put to Jim Chalmers that he had a glass jaw.
The one thing they say is you've got a bit of a glass jaw that you don't cop criticism well or just say that.
I think over time I've learned to understand that you take the good with the bad.
Now, Trump's Trey tariffs was the opening question like it was last night, and Chalmers claimed Albanezy was standing up for Australia while he said Darton was full of doge sick of ants. And Taylor responded by saying that he'd take on the Trump administration and that they would sought out an exemption like they had in the past.
And here I think we've got the first contrast of the debate tonight, the first choice, because we've got a Prime Minister standing up for and speaking up for Australia, and we've got an opposition leader and an opposition which is absolutely full of these kind of thogey sicker fans who have hitched their wagon to American style slogans and policies and especially cuts which would make Australians worse off.
We've heard the first piece of nonsense from Jim tonight, which is that we're not prepared to take on an American administration. We did when we were lasting government, we will again.
The question of a recession was put on the table during the debate.
Augus Taylor said.
That if the four rate cuts that Charmers had forecast, well, if they come to pass, this would mean that Australia would be in a recession, but Charmers argued that he expects the economy to continue to grow. To this point, we heard Angus Taylor point to GDP per capita going backwards. He called it a lost decade with living standards falling.
GDP per capita has gone backwards for twenty one months in a row under your so called stewardship, Jim. And the result of that is our household standard of living, what our incomes combined terms of goods and services, has collapsed in an unprecedented way seven point nine percent since she came into government. The buffers are gone if you look at household budgets that they're deep into digging into their savings.
And that was the crux of the coalition argument that Angus Taylor prosecutor tonight. But Ross Green would push Taylor on spending, saying.
Well, what would he cut?
And Taylor claimed that he'd grow the economy faster by business investment, so he said he'd grow the economy faster than spending with business investment. Green would also then push Charmers on why he's spending twenty billion dollars on student debt when generations before.
Had to pay their own hex debt.
There was also a clash on how much each of their energy plans would cost.
Angus is going to the election with three policies, first of all, to increase income taxes on every Australian tax payer, second of all lower wages, and thirdly secret cuts to pay for nuclear reactors. And you can't find six hundred billion dollars to pay for those nuclear reactors without coming after medicare, just like Peter Dutton did when he was the Health Minister.
The only energy plan that's going to cost six hundred billion dollars is your energy plan, Chris Bowen's energy Now.
Angus Taylor spoke early on about how the standard of living had fallen more under the Albaneze government than at any other time in history, and the cost of living crisis is the central issue on the minds of voters this campaign, But Charmers was able to get through the debate without Taylor convincingly holding him personally responsible for this crisis.
It became a contest on whose plan to help the cost of living was better, rather than what the coalition is seeking to do, which is to have the election become a referendum on the cost of living.
Crimes under labor. We've seen groceries go up by thirty percent, gas electricity insurance all up by over thirty percent. Your homegrown inflation has had this impact. There is a better way, Jim.
Now, this contest between Angus Taylor and Jim Chalmers is important because ultimately there's nothing of more significance to voters at the.
Moment than our economy.
Now we're going to have full analysis tonight. We will have in a moment rich O and Michael Kroger. But right now, for his view on the debate we just saw between Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Angus Taylor. Let's bring in Judo Bank Economic advisor Warren Hogan. Warren, what's your view on how this played out? This is the crucial issue and voters will judge the Albanezy government harshly. But do you think Angus Taylor really nailed Jim Charmers on that tonight?
Look, I don't think he got the killer blow. He didn't ram home the message about the text the massive increase on taxas on Australians, and certainly he didn't get
that sense of the responsibility for the inflation. But he really did win the overall sense of being able to articulate the challenges that the Australian people are facing, the risks that have been posed by not just what's happening now with the tariffs and the market volatility, but with our productivity problem, with our standard of living going backwards, and articulating a plan. And I think that's what he had to do and I think he did that really well.
So I think Angus Taylor has come out pretty well tonight.
Yeah, he did perform really well.
And for many Australians this might have been the first they saw of Angus Taylor because he hasn't given you know, he hasn't been perhaps as prolific as he could have been in terms of media appearances. I think they each got really strong lines in tonight. Angus Taylor his closed sentence, he's closing his closing address there he said, who do you trust to manage the economy more?
That is what the coalition's putting.
And then Jim Chalmers called it a coalition of cuts and chaos, which was quite a biting line as well.
Yeah, well, I think Chalmers didn't land the blow that they're trying to land through this whole campaign, which is the coalition is going to cut, cut, cut. It's actually now just becoming noise because Taylor was able to get through that. So look, I think if you are looking seriously, and economics is extraordinarily complex, the job of the Treasure
is ever more how to actually communicate these issues. I think you can see that Taylor has actually risen to the occasion and the problem for the Treasure is he continues to look like a politician and driven by sort of set pieces and slogans, whereas Taylor is actually articulating the issues. And I think that was the contrast that
Angus Taylor had to bring out. So look, I think from an economist's point of view, knowing what I think is the real priorities for this country, the government's already showing its hands. They are spending too much. The tax burden on Australians is too high. We are running an experiment with growing government like we haven't seen in our past. At the same time we're seeing one of the biggest
shocks to the world economy since nineteen forty five. And I think the real issue is is this government up for this challenge? And I am worried it's not the question now is can Taylor take on the job, And I think tonight he show that he can that question.
Though you know voters are or they should be if they're not concerned about the trillion dollars of debt that Australia would reach under the Albanesi government next financial year. But then when Ross Green would turn that back on Taylor and he said to Taylor, will what would you cut? That was a difficult moment in this debate because Taylor couldn't really answer beyond the renewable energy plan.
And that's the problem with being in opposition. We saw Bill Shorten lose an unlosable election to Scott Morrison because of a big suite of some really good policies, but it was too much for the electric to handle. John Houston's the classic back in nineteen ninety three. So the opposition has got this really tricky ground to navigate to say they're going to do things differently, to demonstrate it without giving the government the material for a scare campaign.
The reality is, if you are going to unwind just the bracket creep, if you're going to give back to the Australian people the increased real tax burden that has happened under this government. That is sixty odd billion a year of cutting. Now, no government's going to do that, but that's the magnitude of it. So there's no way to address that because it'll just give them reasons to
run a scare cam. But he has made it clear and Dunton has made it clear they are going to restrain government spending and I think that is the most important point.
I mean, the question that Screen would put to Jim Chalmers, will you apologize for the two hundred and seventy five dollars You know, it is such a difficult question for the Treasurer to answer because that was an obvious promise that was made at the last election that your power bills will be two dred seventy five dollars cheaper.
I mean, you'd think Australians would be furious about that.
But again, has the Coalition properly pinned that to alban Easy and charm Well.
I think actually Taylor made a very good effort at highlighting that the government and the treasure in particular, is very good at blaming other people for the problems, making it the Ukraine War, making it something going on with tariffs, so that they will not, and that's important because not accepting that you are part of the mix means that for people who are struggling, you're part of the problem. And I think Taylor did actually get that out there.
But to your point, I don't think. I think this is one of the most effective examples of that because they haven't been doing that.
In your mind, was there a clear winner tonight?
I angus Taylor had everything to gain and the Treasure had everything to lose, and that's exactly what happened.
So who won?
I think it's Taylor showed that he is a genuine alternative because he knows what's going on and he understands the issues.
All right, Warren Hogan, thank you so much, appreciate your time as always.
Thanks.
All right, let's get more analysis on who won tonight's debate, and I hope they have a firm view as well, with former Victorian Liberal Party president Michael Kroger and labor legend Graham Richardson. Gentlemen, welcome to you both. Kroger, how do you think the debate tonight went?
Who won?
Well, if you look at it from a political point of view, if it was some kind of university debate. Jim Chalmers won because he's got all the funny tricky lines like oh you Dunton's got all these secret cuts to pay for his nuclear policy. But if you're looking at it seriously as a rivalry between two candidates for the treasurership of Australia, then Angus Taylor won easily. I mean, these debating formats do not suit charmers, right, because the
longer they go, the more you're found out on substance. Now, this is not a fair fight. On the one hand, you've got Taylor, who's a Rhodes scholar, right, He's a Rhodes scholar. Jim's got a university degree, but you know, to be fair, he doesn't have.
The intellect that Taylor's got.
And I don't want to be academic a lead us here, but to be a great treasure in this country, you've got to really be academically excellent. Freedenberg keeping him though it didn't have a uned degree, brilliant mind a Costello and this bloke Taylor, right, you need to have a phenomenal intellect and that's what Taylor's got. That's why the longer it goes, the more they talk about substantial thing. Taylor just Oozer's class and intellect.
Jim.
Jim's good on the retail, secret cuts and the stuff. But it's Jim's a commentator. That's what he is. The economy. He's never been running the economy. The economy is running Jim. You know, he was the surplus king for a while. Now he's a deficit king. Jim's not in charge of anything. He just floats along in the boat down the river telling us what's happening. So the answer is Taylor, because he's got substance.
All right, rich O, I'll go to you for a response to what Michael Kroger has just said it And also, who do you think gave the best performance tonight?
Yeah, we must have been watching different debates. I think I thought that both sides did pretty well. I don't think there's a massively clear winner, but I do think charmers at his nose in front as they passed the winning post.
Look, I don't think there was a clear winner either.
I think both, as I said, both politicians were very sharp, they were both on message, they both prosecuted their arguments well. They both had cutting lines as we saw. But ultimately this is a cost of living election, and you know it's going to be up to who can convince voters that they can And it's not even about managing the economy better, which is what the coalition's line is, who
can put more money back into their pockets. And those comments, I mean, we call them vox pops, those comments that we heard from voters. Right in the middle of that debate, when we heard that one woman say she's been a labor voter her whole life, but now her grocery bill has gone up from eighty dollars a week to one hundred and eighty dollars a week now, I reckon that's
a sentiment that most voters would be feeling. She said she's definitely not voting Alban easy, but she's not voting for Dutton either.
So Michael, do you think this is why.
We're seeing such a large soft vote here.
I think that's right, and it's evidenced by what happened last night. That's incredible debate last night between Peter Dutton and the Prime Minister. Fascinating viewing. When Kier and Gilbert ask the audience through up the hand if they're doing it hard. Half half put the hand up. Some people say, oh gee, that wasn't a big number. Some say it was a lot. The truth of the matter is this,
Australians are proud people. No one likes to go on national television admit that they're financially struggling very badly, right, No, So the fact that half of the people put the hand up basically means that all of them wanted to put their hand up.
Right.
People are shy, They're not going to be on national tellier. They've all got financial problems. No one likes to admit that. So the fact of the matter is that last night indicated and the vox pops today, this election debate is now starting to get onto the substantial, substantive issue, not all the noise we've seen our last week and half.
People are now starting to focus on the main issue confronting Australia, and it's the economic crisis we're in, the economic crisis that's coming for overseas reads that we all know about, and who best is the party to deal with that. So you've got Peter Dutton and an Angus Taylor against Albow and Charmers. And that's why I think Peter Dutton in the end and Angus Taylor will win.
You still think they'll win, Michael, I go to Richro but you think they will win this election?
I do, Yes, I do, all right.
I think in the Inchari people ask themselves do I want the next three is to be like the last three?
And the answer will we know?
RICHI what do you think is Peter Darton Moore back in the game now? Does he have more momentum after his excellent performance last night?
I think he's never been out of the game. He's in it and he's in it to win it. It's just that he's not going to when the crunch comes. Elbow wins this election, in my view, he'll still have a majority on his own.
Look, you both are on my panel every single Wednesday night, so when we get closer to the election, we're going to get an exact seat prediction from you both. But you know you're both experienced commentators. Richard, you're saying Labour's going to win. Michael, you're saying Dutton's going to win. Michael, you'd be in the minority view at the moment given.
What the polls are showing.
But Darton, I know, is certainly confident that he can get there. You know, it's difficult right now because even with so yeah, go for it.
Well accept the red Bridge view that Samaris guy is very bright, and Tony Barry and that mob down there, they have a very large number of undersided voters. I mean where you know, ten days away from pre pole, where almost a month away, three and a half weeks away from the election. The main issue that's been confronting the electorate over the last couple of years, the seventy percent argument, the throbbing issue facing Australia today has not been the substantive issue of the last week.
And a half.
So people are going to very soon get onto the cost of living issue. You could see it last night and tonight you could see it today when Adam Bantter has now put up he read his ugly political head, which is going to be another massive problem for alban easy to do with you know, their arrangement in government. So the policy debate is now turning towards what helps the coalition, what helps Peter Dutton.
Well, what certainly didn't help Albin Ezy today Richro was Adam Bant's intervention, his speech where he outlined all of the radical demands that he'd make of Albinizi in the case of a hung parliament, and you could see how angry alben Ezy was towards journalists unnecessarily.
In reaction to that. But Rich, you know, what did you think of that?
Because at some point, if there is a hung parliament, Albo will have to do a deal with the likes of the radical extremist Adam Bant.
Yeah.
Well that wouldn't be a pleasant thing to have to do, but in politics, you do what you have to do, and even if you have to hold your nose while you're doing it, you do so. And that's what Alba will have to do. You can't you know, Labour is not going to get a majority in its own right. I think realistically, I love them too, and there is some answer it. But I think if we're being realistic and hung parliament's probably more likely.
It's not just about holding Albo's nose because he has a distaste.
Of the Greens. I mean, this would be terrible for the country.
Michael well Chary to be shocking. I mean, Albo just doesn't want to announce he's doing a deal with the Greens on preferences because he knows it will go down badly amongst the eighty eight percent of a stranger don't vote for the Greens. But on the other hand, I think this albow has always been a member of.
The hard left his whole life.
When you look at Albanese's closest international which leader, current or former internationally would ALBANIZI be closest.
To of those that are alive today?
Who was the person who's photographed with He went to visit, he spent time with him.
I know he seemed to admire greatly.
I know where you're going.
Yeah, you know what I'm talking about.
I know Jeremy right, Jeremy Corbyn. I'd like to know, by the way, how many times Jeremy Corbyn has been in contact with Albanezi since Albanici became Prime minister. That'd be very interesting to know how many times has he had he had conversations with or communications with Jeremy Corbyn. So when people say, oh, he'll, you know, hate being in coalition with the Greens on foreign policy, would he really object?
Yeah, all right, we're out of time, rich O, Michael, great to have you as always. Okay, we're going to take a quick break then after I'll show you just how testy Albanezi got today plus wine Liberal candidates like Roe Knox and Tim Wilson keep having their posters stolen.
I'll be back in a minute.
Welcome backward, joining me now, Shadow Home Affairs Minister and Coalition campaign spokesman James Patterson.
James, thanks for your time. Well, let's start with the debate that we've just.
Seen tonight with there any standout moments for you, Charry.
What a contrast. On the one hand, Angus Taylor, someone of seriousness and substance who's thought deeply about the problems facing the Australian economy and has the ideas and the solutions to fix it, a clear economic plan, and Jim Chalmers someone who's a smooth talker who's got a lot
of sharp lines, but he's got no solutions. He didn't even have any empathy for the damage that his government has done to the Australian people over the last three years with the cost of living, let alone any solutions to those problems that he's caused. So I think it was a perfect contrast of the difference between the choice that Australians face at this election. A clear economic plan to get us through these difficult times, or just more of the same from Anthony Alberizi and his team.
We saw the leader's debate last night and Darton repeatedly claimed that Albanezi was dishonest.
Let's have a look at that. If we've got.
It, it's misleading, it's designed to scare people, and I think it's dishonest from a man who wants to be re elected as the Prime Minister of our country. Anthony, with respect, that's a very dishonest proposition. I've heard the Prime Minister run this st before that only needs you Medicare card.
It's not true.
Is this a deliberate plan James to paint the Prime Minister as a liar.
Show?
The Prime Minister is lying so much in this campaign he can't even keep up with his own lies. He contradicted himself in last night's debate, both admitting that we were going to spend exactly what Labor proposers to spend on Medicare and accusing us of cutting Medicare. So in a sense of helpfulness, the Coalition campaign headquarters has established Albow's live lie tracker. We've caught him lying twenty three times since the start of this election, including seven times
in last night's debate. And it's a free public resource, so Labor campaign headquarters can log on and get that and keep the Prime Minister up to date with all the lies he's telling.
All right, so I guess we can expect to see more of that.
Look.
The Prime Minister got quite testy today when he was asked about Adam Bannt's comments.
Have a look, can you rule that any changes to negative gearing and capital gains?
Yes?
How hard is it for the fiftieth time?
Just here, just here, just here to form a government?
What are you talking about?
Sorry?
If the Greens come to you and you need their vote to pass legislation, will you rule out changing negative gearing settings and capital gains?
Yes?
And you might have noticed.
I mean you're a state correspondent.
But let me explain.
There are twenty five votes we have in the Senate in order to get legislation through. We're in that situation, have been in that situation for this entire term.
They're so patronizing in rude James. Does this tell you it's a sole point for the Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister gets very prickly and very sensitive when he's questioned about topics that he knows are damaging and that he knows he has to lie. Every Australian knows if the Prime Minister falls short as the polls predict he will of a majority, that there's nothing that would stop him from doing a deal with Adam Bant and the Greens to form government. Everyone knows that, and so
he can't answer that question. Honestly, all he can do is have that kind of patronizing put downs for journalists. But I hope the gallery keeps pressing him on this. I hope they keep asking until Australians hopefully get a straight answer.
Yeah.
Just on another topic, posters for the Liberal candidate for Wentworth, Roe Knox, also Tim Wilson keep getting pulled down and stolen. This is so frustrating for their volunteers. How much of a problem is this for Liberal candidates like Roeknox and Wilson.
It's certainly frustrating. It's expensive and it's time consuming. And the thing that might interest you in your viewers, Shari, is that this does happen from time to time in marginal suburban seats where the contest is put between the Liberal Party in the Labor Party. It does occasionally happen, but the place where it's happening most often is not in those seats. It's in teal seats. It's Teal candidates James support.
I'm so sorry to interrupt you to a stealing them.
I'm so so try to interrupt. You're out of time. I see you are tomorrow. And here's Paul Murray