Who won the debate and why? Our experts deliver their verdicts

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Coalition leader Peter Dutton faced off in their first leaders’ debate during a people’s forum in western Sydney on Tuesday night, during which issues of policy and character sparked a number of robust exchanges. Three of our top political experts from the Herald and The Age – David Crowe, Jacqueline Maley and James Massola – ran their eyes over the arguments and performances of both leaders and delivered their verdict on who won the debate. Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton have faced off at a people’s forum.

Credit: Stephen Kiprillis VERDICT: Draw This debate was a slow burn to a dead heat. In fact, there was barely any fire in the argument at all. Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton were ready for every question and repeated the usual answers they have recited on each day of the campaign.



The prime minister and opposition leader stuck to their lines – and limited the chances for the audience to learn anything new. The debate did not really test either leader. A truck driver asked a question about fuel excise and set up an easy answer for Dutton.

A teacher asked about school funding and offered an easy opportunity for Albanese. A woman asked about Medicare rebates and gave Albanese another chance to talk about his spending plans. Neither leader landed any knockout blows.

There were no surprises in the tactics, either. Dutton only raised his nuclear policy when Albanese asked about it. Dutton put a question to Albanese about the level of Labor spending, clearly something the Liberals believe is resonating with voters.

But none of the ploys put either off their game. It is hard to see this debate shifting undecided voters one way or the other. VERDICT: ANTHONY ALBANESE If you came for soaring rhetoric and a powerful vision of Australia’s future, you landed at the wrong address.

The first leaders’ debate, in the form of a democratic people’s forum in Sydney’s western suburbs, was prosaic. Neither leader landed much of a blow on the other. The best you could say about Anthony Albanese or Peter Dutton was that they were both solid, and neither stuffed up.

The composition of the forum was excellent – a mix of young and old voters from different backgrounds, all of them ordinary working people with concerns about fuel prices, housing, immigration levels and the cost of visiting their GP. They were treated with respect and empathy by both leaders, and their questions were mostly answered. If there was barely a whisker between the two men in the quality of their responses, it’s because there is not much difference in policy between the pair.

The Coalition has matched most of Labor’s big promises – on health, on youth mental health, on education and on cutting immigration numbers. The two parties are in lock-step on AUKUS, although Dutton says he will boost military funding. The opposition leader’s main pitch was the claim that the Coalition will always be better economic managers than Labor.

Which is an untestable proposition and also doesn’t provide anyone much of a reason to vote for him in particular. Meanwhile, Albanese harked back to Coalition cuts of the past, saying that the last time the Liberals were elected to government (in 2013), they promised not to cut services, but they did it anyway (in the horror 2014 budget). The prime minister made sure to mention the dreaded Medicare co-payment that Dutton tried to introduce during his stint as health minister.

The PM, of course, had brought his favourite visual prop – his trusty Medicare card, Kermit-green and ever-ready to be brandished as a reminder to voters of which party “owns” Medicare. There was little levity, except when Albanese assured voters there would be “no deals” with the Greens in the event of minority government – this caused Dutton to crack a smile. Overall, Albanese came across as more assured and more detailed in his responses.

Dutton spoke well but was at a disadvantage when it came to detailing how he would address the national problems he quite rightly pointed out. That’s the problem with having so little policy on offer – it doesn’t give you much to sell. VERDICT: Draw Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton have fought each other to a draw in the first debate of the 2025 election campaign.

Neither man made any major missteps in a debate that was not only scoreless but which, at times, struggled to have a pulse at all. Given the turmoil in Dutton’s personal life on Tuesday evening – his father Bruce was rushed to hospital with a reported heart attack before the debate – it was an extraordinarily controlled and competent performance and a credit to the opposition leader. The news put the debate in its proper context: this was a contest for the democratic leadership of the country, but no more.

Both men performed well and easily handled the questions put by the audience of voters in western Sydney. Albanese started a little nervously – this was a surprise, given that Labor’s start to the campaign has been weirdly calm and on message, while Dutton threw a few more punches early on, such as accusing Albanese of being dishonest, though the prime minister didn’t bite. Tuesday night showcased two men who are scared to make a mistake.

That’s understandable, given that Dutton can’t afford to make any more mistakes, and Albanese just needs to keep not making mistakes to keep his nose in front. But Dutton needed to win this debate. The opposition leader has made a few missteps during the campaign so far, such as suggesting he’d live at Kirribilli rather than at the Lodge if elected, and the decision to dump the Coalition’s policy on public servants returning to working in the office five days a week.

The debate was a decent hit-out for both men, but the Sky News town hall format meant the two candidates could deliver rehearsed answers and were only really pushed by host Kieran Gilbert. Election watchers – and voters who want actual answers about the big questions facing this country – will hope for more from both men in next week’s second debate. Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis.

Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter ..