Joshua Black, Australian National University; Andrea Carson, La Trobe University, and Zareh Ghazarian, Monash University

Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton have met for the third leaders’ debate of this election campaign, this time on the Nine network. And while the debate traversed much of the same ground as the first two, the quick-fire set up of the debate allowed for some more animated exchanges less than two weeks from election day.

Three expert authors give their analysis of how the two leaders performed.

Joshua Black, Australian National University

Tonight’s leaders’ debate was a marked improvement on the appalling spectacle Nine hosted three years ago. Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton had clearly taken advantage of the reduced campaign activity in recent days to prepare themselves for this contest.

The problem? There was nothing new worth saying. Viewers were treated instead to the greatest hits of an election campaign that has so far not been especially great. Dutton once again paid homage to Howard and Costello’s liberalism (read: “I’m not Trump”), while Albanese repeated his hardly seamless mantra: “no-one held back and no-one left behind” (read: “I’m not Dutton”).

For all of the lofty soundbites, the debate hinged on pedantry. The semantic argument from the first debate about the 2014 budget and health and education spending came up again. (Were there cuts, or did these “line items” simply not grow as fast as promised?)

Both leaders repeated banal explanations about why they were best placed to deal with the Trump White House. There was plenty of tired campaign rhetoric about looming recessions and “talking Australia down”. Even an exchange from last week between Albanese and the ABC’s moderator David Speers seemed to be repeated tonight: why isn’t the government’s energy relief for households means-tested?

At times, this debate was self-indulgent on the part of Nine Entertainment. Ally Langdon (who opened the debate by welcoming “a bit of theatre”) routinely cast her own judgement, condemning Albanese and Dutton for merely “patching cracks” and not proving their “fiscal responsibility” sufficiently.

Interestingly, media policy was one of the few things on which the two leaders could agree. Nine’s political editor Charles Croucher asked the leaders to state their attitude toward the News Media Bargaining Code, which prompts global tech giants to pay Australian news providers for access to their content. Both leaders tripped over themselves to assure the panel they were on a “unity ticket” to protect local media companies (including Nine Entertainment) from being “cannibalised” by multinational tech giants. (Of course, a fair playing field for local media providers is clearly in the national interest.)

This was Dutton’s best debate showing so far. That’s hardly a win. The prime minister managed to reel off a list of his government’s more popular policies, subtly compare his compassionate approach to leadership with Dutton’s darker obsession with order and the threat of disorder, and remind people of the opposition leader’s history of unpopular statements and policies. A modest win for Albanese, if not grounds for inspiration.

Andrea Carson, La Trobe University

Coinciding with the first day of early voting, the third leaders’ debate was more like a game of speed chess – with 60 seconds for leaders’ answers, and 30 seconds for rebuttals. The result was too often a word salad.

While voters may be feeling debate fatigue — and little wonder with a fourth showdown looming on Channel 7 on Sunday — this one could have mattered. With about half of Australians casting their votes early, these televised match-ups represent a potential last chance to shape opinions before May 3.

Instead, questions often focused on personal qualities: trust and lies, and less on policy – poorly serving viewers as answers became a tit-for-tat affair. The countdown of the clock only re-enforced leaders’ rehearsed answers to well-worn topics of cost of living, energy prices, Medicare bulk billing rates, immigration, housing crisis and tax cuts, barely exposing key policy differences for undecided voters. Even their matching blue suits and pale ties made them look less like opponents and more like political twins.

Dutton seemed more assured than Albanese from the start.

Typically, campaign messages get more negative as we move closer to polling day. Studies have shown fear campaigns can “work”, but they can also turn off voters, particularly women. So, unsurprisingly, Dutton’s emphasis was on law and order framed in the language of fear, promising to “keep people safe in their home and communities […] in very uncertain times”. He also promised to cut migration, couched as bringing down housing prices.

The former policeman seeking to be prime minister kept with the law and order theme to sway voters offering a $A750 million package to stamp out illegal drugs and tobacco.

In a similar vein, the Labor leader Anthony Albanese used every chance he had to pivot questions back to Labor’s policy home ground advantage: health, education (free TAFE and reduced HECS debt) and low-cost childcare.

Asked by journalist Deborah Knight if he was “too soft” as a leader, Albanese strove to offer voters hope over fear, replying: “kindness isn’t weakness […] we raise our children to be compassionate”, arguing he can still hold firm when dealing with autocratic leaders to protect Australia’s national interest.

As Dutton listed his top legislative priorities if elected, promising a 25% fuel levy tax, Albanese scored a zinger, pointing out that that policy expires in a year, chortling “you better do it quickly before it disappears”. Overall, it was a flat event, lacking atmosphere and detailed information.

Zareh Ghazarian, Monash University

The “Great Debate”, as it was called by the broadcaster, started on a solemn tone as both leaders mourned the passing of Pope Francis. The format of the debate was geared towards a quick-fire approach. Time limits of one minute per response to questions ensured the debate covered a lot of ground. Policies from cost of living to international affairs were discussed.

The leaders played their roles effectively. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton demonstrated a laser-like focus on critiquing the government, while highlighting the Coalition’s policies. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese defended the track record of his government while also taking opportunities to criticise the previous Morrison government. Both leaders stayed true to advancing the core messages of their campaign.

Cost of living was central to the debate and provided ample opportunity for Dutton and Albanese to put forward their views on the measures they believe would address the issues. Energy policy, and the divide between nuclear and renewable energy sources, also emerged. There was also a moment of unity as both leaders took pride that Australia had implemented a social media ban for under-16s.

After the only break of the night, the host gave both leaders the opportunity to spell out the values that underpinned their policy approach. Dutton focused on restating policy goals, such as a reduction in fuel excise. Albanese returned to “no one left behind, but no one held back” as his key message, a concept he had also mentioned in his victory speech in 2022.

On the whole, and considering the stakes, the debate was a model of civility. Both leaders presented as being in command of the details regarding their policies. Gaffes about figures, costings, and promises were virtually non-existent. Whether it added anything new about the leaders or their policy platforms, however, is debatable.

Joshua Black, Visitor, School of History, Australian National University; Andrea Carson, 2024 Oxford University visiting research fellow RIJS; Professor of Political Communication., La Trobe University, and Zareh Ghazarian, Senior Lecturer in Politics, School of Social Sciences, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Prices have soared beyond wage growth, rents keep rising, and even some well-intentioned government initiatives, including those announced by Labor and the Coalition at their election campaign launches on the weekend, risk driving up demand.

What’s gone wrong?

The Grattan Institute says increasing housing supply is essential to maintain price stability over time, but notes we are not making enough progress.

Australia will miss its goal to build 1.2 million new homes within five years if we stick to the current housing policies and construction practices.

Why it’s not working

There is a wide range of reasons why Australia is failing to provide enough housing:

Fragmented policy approach: A national approach involving all levels of government aligning their policies, rules and regulations is needed.

Planning bottlenecks: Some projects face years of delay due to local council regulations and zoning requirements. The Productivity Commission has reported Australia’s planning system has excessive barriers to new projects, including medium-density developments.

Land release delays: State governments are slow to release new land for housing. This is often because of community opposition, political considerations and market dynamics. This results in limited availability, which leads to higher costs for land that can be developed.

Skills shortages: Recent immigration restrictions have worsened the shortage of skilled tradespeople in the residential construction sector.

Demand-side subsidies: Government programs, such as first home buyer grants, help some people buy homes. However, they also make housing less affordable because they can result in increased prices.

What could work without raising prices

There are various changes that could be made without necessarily raising prices.

Duplication and logjams could be removed if a national housing strategy was introduced. This should integrate policies and regulations across federal, state and local jurisdictions.

Federal grants and incentives should be tied to states meeting targets for land release, re-zoning permits and streamlined approvals.

Using innovative construction technologies can cut construction time by as much as 50%. These include prefabricated and modular building parts, which are made in factories and later assembled at the construction site.

A government update of land use and zoning permits would make it easier and faster to build medium-density housing near transport and job hubs. This is a quick way to add dwellings without sprawl.

Governments could also offer tax or planning concessions for developments that lock in affordable rents. This would help create stable, long-term rental options.

Learning from other countries

Australia can get ideas for increasing housing supply without raising prices from the experience of other countries.

Through substantial investments in social housing, Finland has significantly reduced homelessness and created stable housing options for families with limited income.

Large-scale prefab public housing originated in Singapore decades ago as a method to accelerate construction timelines and reduce expenses. Prefabrication is only used in 8% of projects in Australia at the moment.

Sweden has adopted advanced modular construction techniques, which result in 80% of homes being built off-site.

Germany employs municipal-led housing associations along with rent controls to maintain price stability and tenant protection.

And in the UK, inclusionary zoning regulations mandate that new developments either contain affordable housing units or contribute to a fund that supports affordable housing in different locations. This helps create diverse housing options in most neighborhoods.

Election promises versus real change

Significant reforms are needed – not election sweeteners. To make genuine progress, we need to invest heavily in modern construction techniques, transform housing approval processes and ensure states promptly release essential land.

The solution requires a coordinated response from federal, state and local governments. This would enable more Australians to obtain homeownership and secure rental options.

Our politicians must avoid short-term promises during elections because these threaten to return us to the destructive pattern of escalating prices and dissatisfied homebuyers. Long-term policy reform is what we need.

Ehsan Noroozinejad, Senior Researcher, Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Helen Hodgson, Curtin University

Federal elections always offer the opportunity for a reset. Whoever wins the May 3 election should consider a much needed revamp of the tax system, which is no longer fit for purpose.

The biggest challenge that should be addressed through tax reform is the level of inequality in Australian society.

The five-yearly Intergenerational Reports lay bare the intergenerational squeeze. The future burden of supporting the ageing population will increasingly fall on younger Australians who generally don’t enjoy the same financial wellbeing of previous generations.

But there is also rising inequality within generations. Not all younger Australians can rely on inherited wealth, including the bank of mum and dad. And superannuation balances at retirement vary wildly, given they are tied to work history.

Proper systemic tax reform would play a crucial role building a fairer society.

Reform freeze

But to define what is meant by tax reform, we need to think about some of the big picture concerns that affect our economy.

Arguably we have not successfully pursued a tax reform agenda since the introduction of the GST in 2000. Various governments have changed the tax rates, but that doesn’t constitute genuine reform.

The Henry Review, commissioned by the Rudd government, set out the long-term horizon for reform – including resource taxes and road user charges for the transition to a net-zero economy. However, the Henry blueprint has not been adopted by any succeeding government.

Politicians like to boast of “reform agendas”. Despite the political rhetoric, the tax system has not yet adapted to the 21st century.

Wealth inequality

The biggest gap in our tax base relates to the concessional taxation of wealth and assets, which is an area ripe for reform.

According to the Treasury, the top six revenue losers all relate to superannuation, capital gains and negative gearing. In 2024–25, the estimated revenue foregone for these concessions are:

• $29 billion for the concessional taxation of employer superannuation contributions
• $27 billion for the main residence Capital Gains Tax exemption (discount component)
• $26 billion for rental deductions (this is partly offset by rental income)
• $24.5 billion for main residence Capital Gains Tax exemption
• $22.73 billion for CGT discount for individuals and trusts
• $22.2 billion for the concessional taxation of superannuation earnings

The distributional analysis for superannuation and the Capital Gains Tax discount shows the greatest benefit goes to older taxpayers in the higher earnings brackets. So wealth inequality is perpetuated.

Addressing these overgenerous concessions to broaden the tax base should be the starting point for any meaningful reform in this country.

Taking another look at death duties, which were abolished from the late 1970s, should also be considered.

Death duties were applied to assets transferred to beneficiaries on death. If they were reimposed with a starting threshold set at an appropriate level, they would limit the intergenerational transfer of wealth, which is generating much of the inequity.

Wealth creation tools

The Capital Gains Tax discount was introduced following the 1999 Ralph Review to direct productive capital into Australian businesses.

The 50% discount sparked the boom in residential investment, which combined with negative gearing, has supercharged the inefficiencies in our housing market.

Superannuation is another wealth-creation tool. Again, the design of superannuation, whereby tax was paid at 15% on the three stages of contributions – investment, earnings and withdrawal – was subverted in search of simplicity in 2007 when the Howard government exempted superannuation withdrawals from tax.

Case study

By comparison, the age pension is taxable, if the recipient earns other income. So too are earnings from work allowed under Centrelink rules. This not only allows estate planning advantages, but creates an unfair outcome for retirees who have not had the opportunity to accumulate substantial balances.

Consider the cases of “Jean” and “Kim”, who are both single homeowners aged 68.

Jean has no financial assets and receives the full pension of $1,194 per fortnight plus $512 per fortnight from part-time work. She has a taxable income of $43,816 per annum and, after tax offsets, pays $2,595 in tax including $209.70 medicare levy.

Kim has a superannuation balance of $880,000 and draws a super pension of $44,000. Kim is not eligible for the pension, but pays no tax and no medicare levy.

Is our tax system really delivering a fair go for all Australians?

Tax relief is not reform

Ahead of election day, both the government and opposition are promising tax handouts. Labor is offering top-up tax cuts starting July 1 2026. The coalition says it will temporarily halve the fuel excise.

But meaningful reform will not be achieved by politicians trading off various interest groups to win votes.

Nor do we need yet another review: many of the solutions to Australia’s tax problem were identified by the Henry Review 15 years ago.

And we must avoid cherry-picking incentives that lead to perverse outcomes. For example, cutting fuel excise will slow down the transition to a net zero economy.

Consensus needed

Whoever forms government after the election could build a coalition of business and community sector leaders to seek consensus and pursue holistic reform. The focus must be on addressing the inequality that is emerging as a challenge to the economy and our way of life.

As Ken Henry recently stated, successive governments have fuelled inequality by failing to do three things

one, manage financial risks arising from the erosion of the tax base; two, maintain the integrity of the tax system; and three, have regard to intergenerational equity.

Without significant tax reform, Australia’s wealth divide will continue to deepen with young people and future generations left to suffer the brunt.

This is the sixth article in our special series, Australia’s Policy Challenges. You can read the other articles here

Helen Hodgson, Professor, Curtin Law School and Curtin Business School, Curtin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.