Gabrielle Chan, political correspondent theguardian.com
Sunday 11 August 2013
Short, tightly scripted answers do not a great debate make. This first encounter was the political equivalent of a hospital meal
Tony Abbott: "smooth, on message, but said little". Photograph by Mike Bowers Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
Tony Abbott believes in you. Kevin Rudd believes in gay marriage. The worms don't know who to believe in. The rest of Australia believes in no more election debates.
That seemed to be the take-home message from the first election debate.
But then we knew that from the beginning because all the television stations punted live coverage over to their secondary channels. Not exactly a vote of ratings confidence.
For their Sunday night grist, Australians could choose The X Factor, Australia's Got Talent or perhaps the children's movie, Despicable Me, whose central character Gru is vying for the title of world's greatest villain.
Or, they could turn to the great debate at the National Press Club. Yawns could be heard across the nation.
Part of the problem was with the format. Short, tightly scripted answers interacting through the host does not a debate make.
And rules. Fifteen of them, about opening statements, closing statements, equal time, maximum two-minute answers, no notes, standing positions and rebuttals. If either leader interrupted, they were threatened with the mute button. It was a bit like the cold war. Fingers hovered.
Notwithstanding the electric purple backdrop, Great Debate One was bland, beige, totally without colour – the political equivalent of a hospital meal.
Abbott was smooth, on message, but said little. His was the slicker performance, high on rhetoric, never more so in his closing statement, when he looked straight into the camera and offered his heart to the Australian people like a lovesick teenager.
You know his plan. Sing it with me. Stronger economy, scrap the carbon tax, put the budget in black, build the roads, stop the boats. Most of all repeat. And repeat. And repeat.
"I believe in this plan. We've had the same clear plans for three years now
"I believe in my team, the same strong and united team for three years now.
"Most of all I believe in our people.
"I believe in you.
"Australians, in Menzies' phrase, are a nation of lifters not leaners
"I believe our best years are ahead of us but not if we have another three years like the last six.
"I am ready, my team is ready, our plans are ready, our nation is ready."
Rudd appeared, as he has done for days, more tightly wound and black of mood. In his past few press conferences, the prime minister's performances have betrayed a lack of confidence. It is as if his initial dose of vim and vigour has been left on the back seat of the campaign bus.
He began the debate looking less certain, almost nervous, referring to what appeared to be notes, though it was hard to tell whether they had been scribbled in the course of the night.
He eventually warmed to the task and finished well enough by naming Labor's policy achievements, such as the national broadband network, the education reforms and the national disability scheme. But it was far from vintage Rudd.
He did, however, offer the only new initiative of the night. He committed to bring a marriage equality bill to the parliament in the first 100 days of a newly elected Rudd government, complete with conscience vote. He urged Abbott to do the same.
Abbott's sister, Christine Forster, was tweeting from the audience. Forster is gay and supports marriage equality. He deferred to Forster, described marriage equality as an important issue but politely said there were other important issues which an Abbott government would prioritise, like job security and cost-of-living pressure.
By the end of the night, Twitter was counting down the minutes.
And the voters? Nothing about this debate will inspire more people to engage.
Former Liberal prime minister Robert Menzies may well have believed that we are a nation of lifters not leaners but this Sunday night show did not lift our political inspiration.
This grand electoral institution has become nothing more than a grate debate.
