Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have had their second showdown of the 2025 federal election campaign. The debate, hosted by the ABC, was moderated by David Speers in the national broadcaster’s studios in Western Sydney.

The leaders were asked a wide range of questions on topics such as negative gearing, nuclear energy and Australia’s relationships with the US and China. But the debate was kicked off on housing, which has been a major focus^[1] of the campaign over the last few days.

So, how did it shape up, and how did it compare to the first debate a fortnight ago? Three experts give their analysis.

Matthew Ricketson^[2], Deakin University

Ahead of tonight’s debate, commentators predicted it would have little impact because most people no longer get their news from television and because the election campaign has been deeply uninspiring.

That’s partly an index of how drastically the media landscape has changed. As recently as 2010, nearly 3.4 million people^[3] tuned in to watch the debate between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, which was broadcast on all three commercial networks, as well as the ABC. That number showed evidence of widespread interest in politics.

The number of viewers’ advance questions to the ABC tonight also illustrated keen interest, particularly on issues like the plight of potentially lifelong renters in an overheated housing market and the urgent need to tackle climate change.

The second leaders’ debate didn’t become heated or hostile. Both the prime minister and the opposition leader stayed relentlessly on-message.

As is well known, Albanese is no Cicero, but he was well prepared and generally clear. He was stronger on housing than his opponent, but clearly did not want to get trapped predicting energy prices again, as he had during the 2022 campaign.

Dutton was also clear when he focused on the issue at hand. His strongest line was one he used at least three times: are you better off now than you were three years ago? It is a line used by US President Donald Trump during his successful campaign last year.

But it was on Trump that Dutton tied himself in knots, asserting he would be able to get a deal done with Trump when virtually no one else has and then saying he did not know him. Huh?

He was also defensive when pressed on his nuclear policy and he was all over the shop on climate change.

Befitting the current election campaign, there were meme-able moments on offer for both. Dutton got out his line about Albanese having a problem with the truth. But he coughed up his own when he admitted making a mistake in saying Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto had “publicly announced” Russia had asked his country for a base for its aircraft.

Michelle Cull^[4], Western Sydney University

After both leaders finished their opening statements in good spirits, the debate quickly turned to housing. As suggested by host David Speers, both parties have “put forward ideas that a lot of experts and economists are warning will only push up prices even more”.

So, could the leaders explain how their plans will make housing more affordable in five or ten years?

Albanese said his party had a plan for both demand and supply. He mentioned the Building Australia’s Future Fund to build more public housing, Build to Rent scheme to increase the private rental supply, and the 5% deposit for first home buyers. He also made note of the 100,000 homes that would be allocated only to first home buyers.

Dutton blamed Albanese for the current housing crisis. He promoted the Coalition’s plans to allow first home buyers access up to $50,000 of their superannuation to buy a home and a planned $5 billion infrastructure fund to free up to 500,000 new home lots. Reducing immigration and foreign ownership also rated a mention.

Dutton explained the most important part of the Coalition’s plan was to allow first home buyers a tax deduction for interest on the first $650,000 of their mortgage. When questioned about this favouring higher income earners, Dutton quickly responded that the average taxpayer would save around $11,000 a year.

Talking tax, this provided the perfect opportunity for Speers to pose the question that many viewers wanted to ask – why are both parties not willing to review the tax breaks for investors and the capital gains tax discount?

Dutton jumped at the chance to challenge Albanese about the modelling on negative gearing^[6] conducted by Treasury for the government last year. Albanese replied Treasury was just doing their job and looking at ideas.

The host reminded both leaders that they themselves are property investors. When pressed about possibly placing limits on the number of properties held by investors, Dutton argued there should be no limit as we need the rentals.

Talking rentals, Dutton said renters’ rights were up to the states, while Albanese said his party has delivered the Renter’s Rights Program and increased rental assistance.

Andy Marks^[7], Western Sydney University

For the second leaders’ debate, the ABC’s new Parramatta digs, Studio 91, felt more like the legendary New York dance club, Studio 54. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton stuck to their steps while the host, “DJ” David Speers, tried to disrupt their rhythm.

Dutton opened with the Reaganesque classic, asking viewers: “Are you better off than you were three years ago?”. Albanese countered by saying Australians have done the “hard work” over the past three years, then adding, “there’s much more work to do”.

Dutton wanted to talk about renters. Labor’s policies, he argued, would “drive up the cost of rents”. Albanese held out, preferring to talk first home buyers. “We need to give people a fair crack”, he said.

Dutton retorted, we need to “give young Australians a go”. A “crack” or a “go”. Both options have “hit” written all over them.

Speers then changed tunes, turning to the old election stalwart, spending versus revenue.

“We have improved the bottom line”, Albanese assured viewers. That claim “defies the reality”, Dutton responded. Speers asked Dutton, “Where do you cut?”. No answer. Speers then quizzed Albanese. “When will power bills come down?” No answer.

“I’m friends with Keir Starmer”, Albanese suddenly volunteered, cautioning against the Coalition’s nuclear energy plans. The UK prime minister, Albanese said, regrets his country’s nuclear adventures.

Crossing the Atlantic, Dutton remarked, the Coalition has an “incredible relationship” with the Trump administration. The government’s current ambassador, Kevin Rudd, “can’t get a phone call with the president”, he said. The former ambassador, Joe Hockey, “used to play golf with him.”

The second leaders’ debate traversed the dance floor to the golf course, but got no closer to differing visions for the country.

In a rare moment of harmony, Albanese and Dutton concurred: both sides of government have failed Indigenous Australians. No debate there.

References

1. ^{^} a major focus (theconversation.com)
2. ^{^} Matthew Ricketson (theconversation.com)
3. ^{^} 3.4 million people (researchsystem.canberra.edu.au)
4. ^{^} Michelle Cull (theconversation.com)
5. ^{^} ABC Pool/AAP (photos.aap.com.au)
6. ^{^} modelling on negative gearing (www.abc.net.au)
7. ^{^} Andy Marks (theconversation.com)