Leaders joust over debate details
Updated
Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott have agreed to have a second televised debate, but are arguing over when it should be.
Mr Abbott says he is prepared to have a televised economic debate with Ms Gillard on the ABC tonight, so long as the Prime Minister is willing to front a town-hall style public meeting in Brisbane tomorrow night.
Mr Abbott says he is proposing the debate go for half an hour, which he says will be long enough for all the "big issues" to be canvassed.
But Ms Gillard wants more time for the debate and says it makes logistical sense to have both events on the same night.
In a statement, she has suggested Wednesday night, but says it is up to party officials on both sides to agree on the details.
"I welcome Mr Abbott's decision to now have a debate on the economy, following weeks of running from one," Ms Gillard said yesterday.
"I believe it is important to have a genuine debate on the economy, not a very short debate that allows Mr Abbott to continue avoiding the economic scrutiny he's been running from."
Ms Gillard has already challenged Mr Abbott to an economic debate on several occasions, but he refused in the past.
Earlier Mr Abbott proposed a 30-minute debate be held on the ABC tonight, with journalist Chris Uhlmann adjudicating.
But he set conditions to his challenge.
"I'm more than happy to debate the Prime Minister ... let's go to Brisbane and face the people," he said.
"I do think it's important to flush her out on this subject. I asked at the start of the campaign for three debates. She wasn't prepared to offer three debates then.
"Since then she's been calling for a debate and the last thing I would do is not debate the economy. I've been debating the economy every day this campaign and I'm more than happy to debate the economy tomorrow night.
"So there's my challenge to the Prime Minister, let's debate - just her, just me, with Chris Uhlmann in the middle - and then on Wednesday night she should face up to the people.
"I think it's important for her to face up to the people of Queensland because the Labor brand is toxic in Queensland."
Q&A host Tony Jones told Mr Abbott during last night's program that Ms Gillard had approached the ABC show about holding a debate on Wednesday in Brisbane.
Mr Abbott sidestepped the challenge for a Q&A debate, saying he preferred the format of the Rooty Hill community forum.
Ongoing saga
The Government and the Opposition have been engaged in an ongoing stalemate over whether there would be another debate or forum before the election.
On Sunday, the Opposition Leader called for a second forum with Ms Gillard, similar to the one in which both leaders were grilled by voters at the Rooty Hill RSL in western Sydney, which he calls a "highlight" of the campaign.
The Prime Minister responded by saying she would only face him in another forum on condition there was a one-hour debate on the economy, followed by one hour of questions from the audience.
But Mr Abbott then refused his counterpart's conditions and both parties continued to trade insults.
Mr Abbott was crowned people's choice after the Rooty Hill forum, with an exit poll showing audience members favoured him over Ms Gillard 71 votes to 59.
First posted
Comments (40)
Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.
-
ABC (Moderator):
17 Aug 2010 7:21:35am
What sort of debate would you like to see go ahead?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pete:
17 Aug 2010 7:28:11am
Gillard was too arrogant at the begining of the campaign to debate Abbott twice. When things started to go sour, and people began to see thru her spin and lies, she wanted another debate. Quite rightly Abbott told her to go jump - she had her chance.
Gillard kept banging on about a debate and labeled Abbott a coward for not accepting. Anytime, anyplace - thats what she said. Well Abbott has given you a time and a place and now she is backing away.
It shows the quality of the woman - or lack thereof. She is treating the people with disdain and will continue if we are silly enough to reelect her.Agree (5) Alert moderator
-
seajae:
17 Aug 2010 9:36:45am
spot on Pete, jg is saying Abbott has been avoiding it for weeks yet it is her that refused to have more than one debate in the first place, she only issued the challenge a little over a week ago after she found out labor could lose. She is extremely two faced and cannot be trusted at all. She is trying to get it set up like the last q & a where she gets easy queries and is treated better then abbott by the interviewer, she will not face the public because they actually ask pertinent questions which she will not answer, she refuse to answer anything that will show the truth about here and her party.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Peter:
17 Aug 2010 9:54:38am
You are kidding right?
'I can't rearrange my schedule to fit in another'
'OK, I might lose so lets arrange two SEPARATE nights... oh and we only get 30 minutes on yours and two hours on mine'
Now 30 min, with an introduction, opening statements, perhaps one question each. Times up. How is that a debate?Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
-
the yank:
17 Aug 2010 7:29:14am
At least one hour in front of people well versed in the field of the economy.
Figure what a 30 minute program would offer... with 5 minutes for the moderator to make introductions, ask questions, which then leaves around 25 minutes, divided by two with around 30 seconds of ahs and ums leaves each candidate around 12 minutes.
12 minutes for each candidate to canvass issues facing the worlds 13th largest economy (as noted on Wikipedia using information from the CIA, World Bank and International Monetary Fund),
12 minutes for each candidate to discuss the pros and cons of the Labor governments stimulus package.
12 minutes for the Opposition to explain why they denied, at first, that the GFC was actually taking place.
12 minutes for each candidate to explain that they understand the nations present circumstance (company tax levels, unemployment/ underemployment as well as the countrys debt level) after coming through the worse ever recession in the history of the world,
12 minutes for each candidates to explain how their policies will help see Australias economy through the next 3 years.
In my opinion, that is an insult to the intelligence of the Australian public to hold any debate on the economy of less then one hour.Agree (3) Alert moderator
-
rob1966:
17 Aug 2010 8:09:11am
If you seriously think a debate will provide anything more than carefully scripted responses from both sides you haven't been following this campaign!
This two-and-from about a second debate has become a comedy in itself.
First Abbott asks for 3 debates, and Gillards says "no, one is sufficient".
Then Gillard's polls go down so she says "lets have a second debate, under my terms"; Abbott says "no, you had your chance, I'm busy".
Then Gillard says "ok, lets have a debate when ever you want, but it has to be on the economy"; Abbott still says "no, you had your chance, I'm busy".
Then Abbott says "ok, I will have a debate .. tomorrow"; Gillard responds with "not ready, how about the next day".
Talk about ridiculous!
Anyway - who wants to sit through 60 minutes debating the economy? I'd much rather watch paint dry!Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Michelle:
17 Aug 2010 10:58:15am
If either of them are foolish enough to respond to geniune UNSCRIPTED questions with scripted responses then it will be easy for viewers to pick who's playing games.
If you don't want to sit through an hour debate then you don't have to. But they should. I expect these pair, and Bob Brown to answere geniune questions from everyday Australians.
Not rigged rubbish from Murdoch ring-ins.
Abbott is running scared because he won't be able to rely on the obtuse waffle he's been using to avoid answering questions about *boring economics*. Gillard knows that Abbott under pressure is volatile and liable to say something stupid, and she's hoping he will do exactly that.
It's about time that the number and format of debates was made an election requirement, so none of them can treat intelligent voters with contempt again. Similarly it's also time that once an election is called, the parties must launch and start paying their own bills immediately. Might see some mighty short campaigns and all the childish insulting waffle would at least be condensed so we don't have to put up with it for weeks and weeks.
Would be a great incentive for them to cut to the chase and get it done and dusted.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
neatgadgets:
17 Aug 2010 7:29:18am
I would like to see totally unscripted responses, no speach, just answers to good questions. Let them argue it out. Although I really don't see the point of having the two people not responsible for that specific area in a debate. Makes little sense.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jaded:
17 Aug 2010 7:52:06am
These debates are always a little disappointing compared to actual House of Reps discussion, so I prefer Q&A style presentations, preferably where, to end allegations of bias (darling Bob E.) each participant is asked the same unscripted question by ordinary Australians, though, unusually, I agree with Yank and hope that there are some higher-end economically literate questions. Lets hope for some more intellectual answers and less ''By 1990 no child will be living in poverty''.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Lewis of The Hills:
17 Aug 2010 8:57:57am
Formal orchestrated debates with worm et all are just sooooo booooring. It is nothing more than a glorified point scoring exercise choreographed by the media.
I got a lot more insight into Gillard & Abbot in their separate Q&A forums with the public. The town hall meeting at Rooty Hill was also good & I think both leaders did well there too. Sure, there were overly antagonistic questions as well as dorothy dixers but it is easy to filter those out.
The problem as always is the media who are not interested in issues or policies or the public getting to know these leaders better. The media is only interested in a gladiatorial contest and blood spilled on the colosseum floor.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
DRJB:
17 Aug 2010 7:36:02am
I believe the Gillard model is good as it gives a responsible time for the debate and then allows voters to follow up on economic questions and also include other issues. A half hour debate followed at another time by a completely separate voters questions session is game playing.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
rob1966:
17 Aug 2010 9:04:14am
Do you seriously want to sit through 2.5 hours of politicians waffling on?
An hour of debate waffle, followed by 45 mins each of individual waffle?
Not exactly my idea of rivetting TV!Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
Aja:
17 Aug 2010 7:39:26am
Tony will debate Julia but on his terms only. What I would like to see is a debate on their record as well as the economy. Let Tony tell us about his health portfolio and how he ripped money out of it, let us see his attitude towards women and let us hear how he was the mouthpiece for John Howard when Howard had problems.
Then start on the economy and show us his costings done by the Treasury Department. None of this twisting and turning by having his costings done "independantly".
Level playing field or no debate I say.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
markrr:
17 Aug 2010 7:39:26am
One where they can ask questions of each other as well as a set from the moderator. If we must have something like the "event" at Rooty Hill RSL, the audience had better be more fairly "selected" by somebody independent rather than the stacked farce we saw there. Abbott really only faced not much more than Dorothy Dixers. Lets see how he goes with some tougher questions.
Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
Wagner:
17 Aug 2010 7:53:35am
I thought he did quite well answering questions without notice on Q&A last night. His questions were certainly on par (if not more demanding) than those asked of Julia Gillard last week and he answered them in an honest and much less patronising way.
That being said, politicians on all sides (yes even the "saintly" Greens) are very adept at providing non- answers to difficult questions and it is the job of the moderator to ensure that they are brought to account.
Sadly this never happens.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Ruby and Bella:
17 Aug 2010 7:49:49am
Abbott has got to be kidding with comments like "I think it's important for her to face up to the people of Queensland because the Labor brand is toxic in Queensland." He is actually saying that he wants a debat as long as he has the advantage. Comment from the public and the media about Rooty Hill was overwhemingly in agreement that it was stacked in favour of Abbott. A one hour debate on the ABC would be reasonable. Some excuse makers acuse the ABC of bias to the left but we think that this is only a perception when the fairness of the ABC is viewed in the shadow of the journalism for profit commercial media. Not only does Labor have to defeat the opposition it also has to battle Murdoch and Co. After Abbotts comments about the broard band network and personnally ordering the boats back we are firmly convinced that our last preference will be handed to the Liberals.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
dave:
17 Aug 2010 7:51:25am
30 minutes to debate on all issues let alone the issue of economic management is a joke and is offensive to the intelligence of the Australian public. Mr Abbott knows he is out of his depth on the issue of the economy and is now trying to save face by using the 'I'm calling the shots' tactic. If Mr Abbott was honest and truly wanted to debate the PM on the economy he would have happily agreed to a debate on the issue last week and he wouldn't be setting all these ridiculous conditions either. I really hope it's not too late before Australia wakes up and realises this man is nothing more than a phoney and a bully.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Babsie:
17 Aug 2010 7:54:08am
I would like to see Gillard & Abbott along with Wayne Swann & Joe Hockey for at least an hour battle it out NO interruptions by the other side whilst the other are speaking. and questions to be aimed at one individual no butting in by either partner
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
mik:
17 Aug 2010 7:57:42am
Oh god not more wasted airtime. the only people who count are the swinging voters and they are swinging because they dont believe a word that either of these two clowns says. extra hot air is not going to convince anyone, we already know who we are going to vote for. give me reruns of MASH until this farce is over and all of our donkey votes have elected the next bunch of donkeys to try and run the country.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jenny:
17 Aug 2010 8:00:50am
What an absolute joke --- 30 minutes and the usual boring two party preferred format that seems to define the limits of the comfort zone of Australian journalism. How about a real debate including the leaders of all relevant political parties, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbot and Bob Brown. Given the prospect that the greens will hold the balance of power in the senate and enjoy the support of around 14% of voters the systematic exclusion of the Greens by the media has been an absolute disgrace.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Jono:
17 Aug 2010 8:08:41am
Why not include Greens leader Bob Brown in the economic debate? What do Julia and Tony have to lose?
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Dazza:
17 Aug 2010 9:04:05am
Because he is not contending the Prime Ministership, he's a Senator. He doesn't formulate policy, he reviews it.
If he wants to be in a debate, then he is in the wrong House of Parliament!Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
Lord Rocker:
17 Aug 2010 8:33:25am
People have to remember that Tony Abbott is to release the costing to Treasury tomorrow (Wednesday). Him wanting to have the debate tonight and not tomorrow night just represents he is not releasing these costing on Wednesday. He wants to have this debate before and not after the fact as he knows he will be pressured why he has not released them again. He is playing the game!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
maltul:
17 Aug 2010 8:35:11am
We do not want another "debate" like the first one, debates in the US and UK are the same as ours was, a panel of journo's asking pedictable questions. Q&A on ABC appears to be the real deal most of the time, having our political leaders face the people more often can only be good for democracy.
ABC has been offering this forum since the beginning and it must be accepted as regular practice in election campaigns, NO more phony debates standing in front of a hand picked panel, except the National Press Club which has provided an acceptable forum for our polititians to debate policy. It is also time the Greens were included, simply because they may indeed hold the balance of power in the Senate and we need to know what that means.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Lisa:
17 Aug 2010 8:38:32am
Bob Brown and the Greens have no economic credentials to participate in a debate on the economy.
No more debates from anyone - if you haven't made up your mind by now, you must be living on MarsAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Trump:
17 Aug 2010 8:43:36am
Getting too late for a debate now , this is being pushed by the media.
Gillard should be thankful Abbott didn't take up her challenge to debate on the economy, she wouldn't have had a chance.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
GP:
17 Aug 2010 8:44:03am
Could we just can the debates and the town hall meetings? They serve no useful purpose. It's the very same bland repetitive positions each party trots out and the news papers and political junkies interpret with their own bias thrown in. The time for debates is over. Most people have already made up their mind. If they are targeting the undecided voter I suggest there are in fact none.
I cant also understand why the town hall is only to respond to voter issues in Queensland. Is this not a federal election and cant one have a town hall at separate times why does one follow the other. It the liberals insist on a town hall they can have their own whenever they chose and stack the audience as they please and the same goes for Labor. And could we please have the ABC organise any debates, town halls rather than commercial organisations. they do a much better job than News ltd, Sky and Galaxy organisationsAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
bryn lubbock:
17 Aug 2010 9:01:28am
watched Q & A last night and thought Tony is like a good wine, at the start of the election he shot himself in the foot every time he opened his mouth and always looked worried about what to say where as Julia looked supremely comfident, how a couple of weeks can change, he looked so at ease and confident last night where as Julia has got more unbeleivable and untrust worthy in the last week, still swinging like gibbon in a tree on which party to vote for but Tony definately the better (beleivable) at this point in time.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jakke:
17 Aug 2010 9:49:24am
I watched Q+A too, and my two main emotions after seeing him struggle with answers to the actual questions, are firstly that I feel sorry for the guy as he seems to be quite a bit out of his depth on a lot of issues, and secondly, how embarrassing it would be if he was to become our next prime minister and he would be representing us on some international forum.
The bes thing we can hope for if Tony gets elected is that the Liberals quickly replace him with Malcolm. Not sure where they would find a decent deputy and treasurer though.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Shaun Newman:
17 Aug 2010 9:13:51am
Head to head, Gillard v Abbott on the economy and super fast broadband.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
goombungin:
17 Aug 2010 9:14:43am
So Abbott thinks that if he gets 15mins, and if that really considering the intro and setting down of the rules he can debate the economy it just goes to show what he thinks of us all. The truth of the matter being he's hoping that if he keeps it short he might'nt have to answer to many questions because anybody who has seen him up against Gillard in qestion time knows she has his measure on the economy. It should be interesting television. I hope
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Almost there:
17 Aug 2010 9:18:34am
I want them both on Q & A at the same time. I want to see them have a civil discussion about the issues the audience nominates. They are both intelligent, mature, experienced orators, surely they are capable of this style of debate.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Paul:
17 Aug 2010 9:41:41am
I can't believe all the Labor comments referring to Rooty Hill still.
Nothing about last night on Q&A where Tony looked assured and seemed to have a fair bit of support like he did at Rooty Hill. But that can't be rigged right, it's the Labor swinging ALP.
I'm disgusted that there is not more coverage of the program last night as Julia was gushed over for her performance.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Reeper:
17 Aug 2010 9:46:57am
We are meant to be electing a government to run the country, not an individual. You don't base that decision on which party leader handles a press gallery more effectively in the space of 1 hour using one of three possible approaches:
a) Fully canned response
b) Re-wording question to deliver fully canned response
c) Avoiding question entirely and launching ad-hominem attacks on their opponent (or opponents colleagues) to distract from the fact they dont have a pre-canned response.
Why have all the focus on the leaders? We're not voting for a President with executive powers here, we're voting in a team of policy makers. All the debates do is reduce the whole process to a boxing match like headline ("TONITE: JULIA "The RED DRAGON" GILLARD Vs. TONY "The MAD MONK" ABBOTT) and raise TV ratings. They sertainly dont help the democratic process.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
bootsy:
17 Aug 2010 9:57:23am
1 hour on Q&A, questions from the audience, but most importantly head-to-head proper debate so they can call each other out of their stump speech scripted lines. They will have to decide between respecting the question, attacking their opponents facts, and appearing prime ministerial.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Peter:
17 Aug 2010 9:58:56am
I think its important that it be held tomorrow, rather then today. Let the Coalition costings be released BEFORE the debate. Having them released afterwards allows obfuscation of the issues and costs associated with the policy directions.
I, too, would like to see questions on economics rather then random clap trap that allows the scripted responses. It should also be a slogan free zone, with any mention of 'stop the debt' being bleeped out. We can find something on the Labor side to bleep as well I'm sure.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
yys:
17 Aug 2010 10:08:51am
I think the q&a style works well, be it at Rooty Hill or elsewhere. Perhaps the questions could come both from the audience and from a panel of journalists , one at a time to each Tony and Julia
The other kind of "worm-assessed" debate results in emphasis on pointscoring which can be distracting and meaningless.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
atclay_t:
17 Aug 2010 10:36:48am
Anyone watching Four Corners last night would have already seen what any putative debate would demonstrate:
a comfortable and incisively intelligent Julia with positive plans for the future
a nervous Tony caught in the glare of the headlights and paranoid about saying anything that he actually believes in because it might just offend someone in a marginal seatAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
overhead:
17 Aug 2010 10:45:50am
Definitely a Q&A format with the impartial Tony Jones as moderator. Definitely NOT Chris Ulhman. Definitely NO headline seeking cynical Journalists to be involved. We might then see
the true attributes of the CandidatesAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Mark S:
17 Aug 2010 10:50:12am
I have, until now, been quite sympathetic to the Liberals. Gillard wanted a debate because her campaign was faltering and she needed oxygen.
However now Gillard's campaign is clearly not in trouble - at least not in as much trouble as Abbott'campaign. Conventional wisdom says that now Abbott should be relishing the possibility of a debate - particularly on the economy which the Coalition claims is their strength.
I do not buy the idea that a 30 minute debate is any debate at all - it is a sham. I do not see why Abbott is running away - he either has something to hide or or is genuinely threatened by Gillard - or both! Come on Tony - have a real debate and get it over with.Agree (2) Alert moderator
Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.
Search ABC News
76 needed to form government
The Negotiations
State of the Parties
76 seats required for victory
|
92.8% counted.
Updated Wed Sep 8 12:54AM
|
||||||
| Party | % Vote | Swing | Won | Predict | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labor | 38.0 | -5.4 | 72 | |||
| Coalition | 43.7 | +1.5 | 73 | |||
| Greens | 11.7 | +4.0 | 1 | |||
| Others | 6.6 | -0.1 | 4 | |||
Featured Video
-
Video
Australia finally has a government after 17 days of political limbo with Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor backing Labor.
-
Video
Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she is ready to form government with the help of the Independents.
-
Video
Tony Abbott says he is disappointed the Coalition could not form government despite winning the most votes and seats.
-
Video
Jeremy Fernandez takes an in-depth look at ruling minority governments from around the world.
The ABC News Online Investigative Unit encourages whistleblowers, and others with access to information they believe should be revealed for the public good, to contact us.


Regular election updates on