One thing became very clear by the end of Sunday night’s debate between Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kim Beazley: there should be another debate.
At a time of ever shorter sound and vision bites, it has been very difficult for viewers to get a good view of the two leaders. It is an enormous paradox that in the age of electronic broadcasting that fewer voters get a rounded view of their leaders than, perhaps, in the days of the public meeting and extensive press reports of the substance of what was said.
Perhaps only 10 or 20 per cent of voters are interested in a hour’s debate. That should not preclude it. Those 20 per cent probably contain a large proportion of swinging voters in whose hands the election result rests. If the commercial channels do not like the idea of taking a ratings bath, the debate can go to the ABC.
One of the difficulties in the past half dozen elections has been the power play between the parties. Generally, the incumbents have sought to lessen the number of debates or not have them, fearing the Opposition might expose their vulnerability. Australia could borrow from the US where an independent commission sets the rules.
There should be at least two debates in an Australian campaign, one at the beginning and one at the end. One, at least, should be on the national broadcaster. It should be up to the independent commission to determine who should conduct the debate, but it would be preferable to have different people for each debate. A leader who refused to submit to the terms laid down by the commission would be seen to be squibbing it.
This time Mr Howard is squibbing it, by restricting it to one debate. In 1987 Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke squibbed it, by refusing any debate. Clearly, party leaders are not capable of setting the debate agenda.