As the final leaders' debate nears, here's how Albanese and Dutton have fared so far
On the last weekend before the election, Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton will face-off for the final leaders' debate on
Sunday, April 27
.
The pair will be back at it for the fourth debate in this election campaign.
Here's what you need to know.
What channel is the final leaders' debate on?
It will be hosted by
7News.
7News have called it The Final Showdown Leaders' Debate.
How do I watch the final debate?
It will be
broadcast on Seven's free-to-air channel
as well as on its
catch-up service 7plus
.
Viewers can also watch it on
ABC News will be
live blogging
the debate on
When does the final debate start?
ACT, NSW, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria:
8pm AEST
Northern Territory and South Australia:
7:30pm ACST
Western Australia:
6pm AWST
How will the debate work?
The debate will be
moderated by 7News's political editor Mark Riley
and
hosted by Sunrise's Natalie Barr
.
Immediately after the debate,
Michael Usher will anchor 7NEWS Spotlight
where he will discuss the final verdict and analyse key issues.
Five key takeaways from the first debate
The first debate was hosted by Sky News on Tuesday, April 8.
Peter Dutton said he walked back on the WFH policy because of a Labor scare-campaign.
(
AAP: Jason Edwards
)
1. Albanese declared debate winner:
Sky declared Mr Albanese the winner of the first leaders' debate.
2. Dutton walks back WFH policy:
Mr Dutton said a Labor scare-campaign resulted in the policy being junked.
3. Albanese refuses to match the Coalition's 50 per cent fuel excise:
Mr Albanese said the opposition's policy was only a temporary measure lasting for 12 months and pointed to Labor's broader cost-of-living relief measures.
4. Medicare and GP costs in focus:
Mr Albanese highlighted increased bulk-billing incentives under Labor, while Dutton criticised declining bulk-billing rates and the rising out-of-pocket costs for GP visits.
5. Nuclear v renewable energy clash:
Mr Dutton argued the $331 billion proposal would be more cost-effective in the long run than Labor's renewable energy strategy.
Here's where you can read
Five key takeaways from the second debate
The second debate was hosted by ABC on Wednesday, April 16.
Anthony Albanese avoided making firm promises on future power price cuts after Labor failed to deliver on its 2022 pledge of a $275 reduction.
(
ABC News: Matt Roberts
)
1. Dutton admits mistake:
Mr Dutton admitted to incorrectly attributing a statement about Russian aircraft in Papua to the Indonesian president.
2. Labor dodges power price cuts:
Mr Albanese avoided making firm promises on future power price cuts after Labor failed to deliver on its 2022 pledge of a $275 reduction.
3. Trump continues to loom over election:
Mr Dutton took aim at Mr Albanese for not meeting with US President Donald Trump to seek a US tariff exemption, arguing stronger ties might have helped.
4. Leaders trade blows over climate and energy:
When asked about climate change, Mr Dutton said he's "not a scientist" which prompted Mr Albanese to defend renewables. The pair also clashed over nuclear energy.
5. United over failures to Close the Gap, divided on how to proceed:
Both leaders acknowledged failures in closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, but were divided in how to proceed.
Here's where you can read
Five key takeaways from the third debate
The third debate was hosted by Channel Nine on Tuesday, April 22.
Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton promised they would not make changes to either negative gearing or the capital gains tax discount if elected.
(
Supplied: Nine/James Brickwood
)
1. Dutton declared debate winner:
A panel of Nine journalists declared Mr Dutton the winner of the third leaders' debate.
2. No changes to negative gearing:
Both leaders promised they would not make changes to either negative gearing or the capital gains tax discount if elected.
3. 'Loose' versus 'weak' on the world stage:
Mr Albanese said Mr Dutton was "loose" in his response to world events, while, Mr Dutton said Mr Albanese was "a weak leader" unable to advocate for Australia.
4. No change to nuclear debate after election:
Both leaders have both vowed to stick to their stances on nuclear power regardless of the election result.
5. Dutton defers debt reduction plan to after the election
Mr Dutton said he would outline his full plans to reduce federal government debt after the election, prompting Mr Albanese to accuse him of planning secret cuts.
Here's where you can read
When is the federal election?
The federal election will be held on Saturday, May 3 but early voting has already commenced.
Here's where you can
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
9 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The Libs have been handed a golden opportunity. Now watch them stuff it up
One of the great entertainments of political commentary in Australia over the past decade and a bit has been speculating on what new and inventive way the Liberal Party will find to comprehensively bugger itself up. I can't help thinking this must have crossed Treasurer Jim Chalmers' mind as he fronted the National Press Club this week to announce that he will undertake a process to develop a new productivity agenda. Chalmers' speech was solid, but so it should be after so many have said the same things so often to so little avail. His words and aspirations have been written for him many times over, sometimes with hope, other times with emotions ranging from dull rage to despair. Sometimes even by the Coalition. We need productivity reform, politicians all know we need it, the media all know they know we need it, yet no-one ever does it. There's a simple reason for that: it's hard. The treasurer dwelt in his speech on why it's hard. Reforming an economic system requires trade-offs. Some choices will cost some people. They may or may not be recompensed in the rejig. Chalmers doesn't want the media to simplify economic reform by explaining it in terms of 'winners and losers', as they do after each budget, but there will be winners and losers in the short, medium or long term as a result of any new tax system. And, naturally, the opposition will do what the name says on the tin. It will oppose. Given the last years of Liberal shenanigans, the real question is how it chooses to do that. In one scenario, Sussan Ley leads a team which analyses and criticises the government's productivity proposals to ensure the best outcome for Australia and Australians. Should they choose this version of their own adventure, there will be plenty of material to tackle. The prime minister has already shown that he has no instinct for making business more efficient or even any understanding that a healthy economy relies on the private sector, creating new wealth instead of just shifting existing money around. In the first term of the Albanese government, the size of the public sector grew relative to the size of the private sector, so now each private employee is supporting more public sector salaries. Loading Then-employment minister Tony Burke passed through an industrial relations bill which makes it harder for businesses to scale up without locking themselves into costly arrangements. Meanwhile, the 'Future Made in Australia' slush fund has been 'picking winners' (code for government making decisions on industries it poorly understands) by investing in bringing in an overseas quantum technology firm rather than backing existing quantum technology firms – ahem – made in Australia. Labor is even trashing its own legacy by changing rules on the superannuation system it forced people to contribute to, undermining trust that the money you lock away for retirement is really yours for later. It's hard to see how a government which made policies of this sort a priority and prefers the public to the private sector will back a productivity agenda which turns Australia around. But one of the great paradoxes of politics is that sometimes you need the party which is seen to be the touchy-feely side to deliver hard-nosed decisions. Think Labour prime minister Tony Blair in the UK, Democrat president Bill Clinton in the USA, or chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, all of whom delivered welfare reform in the face of their countries' badly designed benefits systems which were creating disincentives to work.
Sky News AU
9 hours ago
- Sky News AU
'Biggest terrorist organisation in the world': Pro-Iran protester disrupts Andrew Hastie's press conference as Coalition backs US strikes on Iran
Andrew Hastie's press conference has been interrupted by a pro-Iran protester as he confirmed the Coalition's support for US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Mr Hastie said on Sunday the world could never accept a nuclear Iran, describing the Islamic Republic as a "repressive, theocratic autocracy" and a "sponsor of terrorism". "From October 7, we've seen Iran support Hamas. We've seen Iran support Hezbollah. We've seen Iran support the Houthis, and we saw last year, Iran conduct missile strikes in April and October against Israeli citizens in Israel. This is a regime committed to the destruction of Israel and our allies, like the United States," he said. "It's also a highly repressive regime which has persecuted women, dissidents, religious minorities, and that is why we support the actions today - because we have no faith that the Iranian regime will negotiate in good faith. "The Coalition does not want war. We do not want war. But we believe this was a necessary action to take by the United States." But as shadow home affairs minister continued his comments, a pro-Iran protester could be heard booing in the background and claiming it is the United States, not Iran, that are the "biggest terrorists". "Boo man, come on," the protester yelled. "Oh come on, the USA is the biggest terrorist country in the world. Mr Hastie attempted to continue his comments, but the protesters was not finished. "Hello? The USA is the biggest terrorist organisation in the world," they said. After pausing for the interjection, Mr Hastie said, "It's a free country. She's allowed to say what she likes. Nonetheless, our position is unchanging." "We do support the United States, and the Albanese government should be supporting the United States as well." The shadow home affairs minister then began to speak about how Iran had breached its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. "We've seen 400 kilograms of 60 per cent enriched uranium stockpiled by Iran. Now, the IAEA caps enrichment at 20 per cent for military use, which is sort of reactor you have in a submarine," he said. To which the protester replied: "And the USA does exactly the same". Mr Hastie continued, adding that civil nuclear reactors only require 5 per cent enrichment. "So 60 per cent (shows they) were headed towards a nuclear weapon," he said. "And given that they sponsor terrorism, and that the Supreme Leader of Iran himself has said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, I think it was the right call to make." "So does the US have nuclear weapons," the protester again yelled. "The US is a bigger terrorist organisation than Iran." The Coalition's position comes after the Albanese government continued to call for 'de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy' following US airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. In a statement responding to the US military action, a spokesperson reiterated the Albanese government's existing position. 'We have been clear that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programme has been a threat to international peace and security," the spokesperson said. "We note the US President's statement that now is the time for peace. The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.'
AU Financial Review
10 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
‘Scarce resources': AUKUS submarine sales at risk from Pentagon review
Washington | The Albanese government is being warned that a Pentagon review risks imperilling Australia's nuclear submarine ambitions if the US administration takes a hardline stance on the threat from China in the coming years. American national security experts familiar with the Trump administration, who spoke with The Australian Financial Review, viewed the most likely outcome of a 30-day review of the AUKUS pact would be a White House push for more investment from Canberra, either in its own defence hardware or for US shipbuilding facilities.
