UK United Kingdom

Australia deserves better leaders' debates - and here’s how we can do it

By accident more than design, it seems that Australia - like the United States and the United Kingdom - will have three prime ministerial debates prior to the election. At the end of last night’s debate…

We could have better leaders' debates in Australia if reforms were agreed to by both sides. AAP/Lukas Coch

By accident more than design, it seems that Australia - like the United States and the United Kingdom - will have three prime ministerial debates prior to the election.

At the end of last night’s debate at the Broncos Leagues Club in Brisbane, prime minister Kevin Rudd seemed almost taken aback by moderator David Speers’ assertion that there would be another debate in a week’s time. How ironic if we are getting a third debate because Rudd, the man who proposed an electoral debates commission prior to the 2007 poll and then failed to deliver one, was “bounced” into accepting a third debate by Sky News.

We may never know, but with last night’s hour clearly more engaging than the dull “press conference” of the first National Press Club effort, perhaps the Rooty Hill event in Sydney’s west will be a further improvement.

We can but hope. Because with the content and format of these debates agreed in the tense days prior to the poll, candidates and parties understandably only agree to rules, venues and formats they believe will be to their advantage.

It is an immature and unlikely way to achieve an outcome that would allow the electorate to truly engage with and understand the different policies on offer. The process affects the outcome. Get the first wrong and the second doesn’t really stand a chance.

As with the first debate, last night’s “people’s forum” bore all the hallmarks of a hastily arranged affair resulting from a swift negotiation between the political parties, leaders' offices and their broadcaster of choice. Although having people rather than members of the Canberra press gallery added a more authentic touch, the questions weren’t penetrating enough to result in terribly much more than the rehearsed lines and statements that the two men were going to make irrespective of the question. There was also no ability for the questioner to reveal their assessment of the answers: a question from the floor, two - sometimes more - over-length answers and then swiftly on to the next question.

How different it could be. If a bipartisan commission was established with representation drawn from those with a deep professional understanding of democracy, broadcasting and new media, Australia could demonstrate its capacity for democratic innovation again. For much as these debates are part theatre, part boxing match, they matter.

Done well, debates have the capacity to reveal both the nature of alternative policies and be the stimulus to greater understanding and debate through other media. They can enhance and strengthen democratic engagement and with it the quality of our national leadership.

Contrast media discussion of the first debate here as if it were a sporting match, with the pages of analysis in the print media on the substance of what was said and committed to following each of the prime ministerial debates in the UK in 2010. Or the way in which the New York Times fact-checked each of the statements made in each of the US presidential debates with a group of experts on domestic and international policy.

The details of presidential debates in the United States are decided by an independent debates commission. EPA/Justin Lane

Or even with the US Presidential Debates Commission having agreed the number, format, timing and venue for each of the Romney-Obama debates a year prior, how the dynamics in the first debate created a different context for the second and third. Agree even the most basic rules for the debate before the campaign, and it helps provide that campaign with structure: a beginning, a middle, and an end with different policy areas the subject of each debate.

And there are ways to enhance democracy through the crafting of the questions as well as the analysis of the answers. There is surely a third way somewhere between the hi-vis jacket of the building worker at the Broncos Leagues Club and the besuited members of the Canberra press gallery going through the paces.

What are the five key economic questions that should be asked of our prospective prime ministers? How refreshing and engaging it could be if an electoral debates commission were to convene a group of eminent economists and then, in the months prior to the election, seek public input through online voting on those draft questions. The same could done with the environment, national security and other areas of policy.

Whether in front of the crowd in the Roman forum - or in front of the television cameras in the studio - matters of theatre and performance have always been an element in the pursuit of power. They will remain so. But our politics and the policies that flow from it are more than cabaret. They have a deep effect on all our futures.

It’s fantasy perhaps. But what a legacy it would be for the next debate to end with more than an announcement of another, but an agreement that decisions about how to establish them into the future be taken out of the political and media backrooms and into a creative, positive and rigorous process detached from self serving pre-election politics.

Join the conversation

11 Comments sorted by

  1. Michael Shand

    Software Tester

    What an ignorant article, setting up structured debates between the 2 major parties does not help democracy, it engrains the 2 party mentality further into society and encourages the public to treat politics like a sports match

    You know, largely arbitarilly choose a side before hand, barack for that team, treat the opposition as an "Other" and Laugh at anyone who might suggest a 3rd party or independent voice may add value to the conversation

    That's all this is, another way to saturate the market with the 2 party mentality cos in the end both parties are in bed with big business and fundamentally corrupted

  2. Kym Afford

    logged in via Facebook

    173,000,000 more people on the planet in less than two years and the affect we are having on the planet is treated like a joke. More jobs more houses more roads more pollution. There is still time to make climate change a major part of the next debate.. In particular why the two major parties don't seem to care... Let's hear some real questions.... Better still the leaders who should include Christine Milne, now have Time to prepare.

    1. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Kym Afford

      They are never going to let a 3rd party or independent voice be heard or even share the same platform as the major party's least they give credibility to these voices

      You think that after both major party's declared the greens as extremists that they are going to invite christine to a debate?

      not even the author of this article would entertain this idea

      The message they are trying to send to you is "your only choice this election is the Laboural duopoly"

    2. Kym Afford

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Michael Shand

      Your first letter hit the nail on the head. The Greens are the only party accused of having common sense and we cannot have greed compromised by that. The sad thing is that early in the next term of parliament the electorates will come out of their Murdoch induced stupor and ask, "Why were we not told about climate change?"

    3. In reply to Kym Afford

      Comment removed by moderator.

    4. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Kym Afford

      My response was removed, I think because I used a cuss word

      But basically I was agreeing with you except as long as we have almost everyone in the media portraying this false diachotomy there is very little chance that people will look outside of the 2 party system for answers.

      One example of how stuck in this we are is the image of The Conversations "Election Fact Check" page where they could of put anything there but what they choose to display is a picture of Rudd and Abbott.

      I had asked them to update this to include Katter, Assange, Milne, etc as we don't need more reinforcement of this 2 party thinking and they refused.

      It would of been the simplist task in the world to include candidates outside the 2 party system, especially from party's that last election received 15% of the vote (Greens) but this is too far outside the realm of establishment mentality

  3. Garry Baker


    Australia doesn't have leaders - Period. Just a bunch of chimps playing the political game, who now then use Australians wishes as lever to advance their own cause. Power preservation, that's their game

    Better we look around the globe, and outsource these supposed country managers, then pay them them on performance, just like companies do.

  4. Pat Moore


    Pollyanna on a blue sky day through rose coloured glasses? Koom bye ya. News flash.... "democracy" isn't really democracy Nick, but nice theories and thanks for the fantasies.

    Meanwhile back in the real world let's hope Rooty Hill lives up to its name despite the Murdoch vetted, Sky News sponsored, sure to be Dorothy Dixers 'undecided voters'.... some theatrically annoyed citizen actors with some polling informed 'questions'? Here's rooting for 'the comeback kid' through the heavy going on Murdoch's weighted track.

  5. imogen birley

    logged in via Twitter

    Nick it's a shame you wrote this article with a fairly glaring omission, which is not acknowledging that the Greens explicitly included the creation of a debates commission in their agreement to support the minority ALP government. The ALP then reneged on setting it up.

    Not only is it it important to show that there has been some serious attempts by a political party to progress this issue, it's also germane to the discussion of who should be included in such debates.

    The ALP & LNP and much of the media remain rigid & unchallenged in their thinking that election debates should only be premised on an assumption of the only likely election outcome being majority government.

    Some deeper & independent thinking is clearly required not least given the outcome of the 2010 election.