The agreement between the Prime Minister, Paul Keating, and the Leader of the Opposition, John Hewson, to have two debates during the election campaign is most welcome. It should become a regular pattern for all Federal elections. In recent Australian history, head-to-head television debates during the campaign have been the exception rather than the rule. A notable exception was the debate during the 1984 campaign between the then Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Peacock, and the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. Mr Hawke was riding on a wave of popularity. Mr Peacock was the underdog. The debate, which consisted of questions from a panel of journalists, transformed the Peacock campaign and image. It was widely thought Mr Peacock had performed better than expected in that campaign and the debate played an important part in that. The sad upshot was that Mr Hawke shied away from debates where he would be grilled by a panel. In the 1990 campaign there was one tedious debate where each leader made a statement and replied to other.
There are some pleasing aspects to the proposal for this campaign: there will be more than one debate; they are likely to involve a panel of questioners; they will be 90 minutes long; they will be on the ABC and offered to the commercials; they will not have a studio audience; they will be live; they will be spaced one at the beginning and one at the end of the campaign and they are restricted to the two potential prime ministers. The debates need to be fairly long. One of the most galling things about television coverage of political events is the quick grab. During the last US presidential campaign, for example, grabs averaged under nine seconds on the commercial news. No-one has been patient enough to do the research in Australia, but no doubt the position is similar. Politicians play to this environment; they have to. Given the sad fact that a large proportion of the electorate gets news only from the box, the result is mass ignorance of issues and political judgments being formed around image rather than substance. It may well be, of course, that many will not bother with two 90-minute debates, none the less the opportunity will be there and at least some will take it. The absence of commercials and a booing or cheering audience is welcome because it will enable people to judge the protagonists’ handling of the issues free from distraction. The live debate is important, too. The electors will see the leaders as they are; not after important elements of what they say is left on the cutting-room floor.
These debates could be a turning point in the evolution of the way election campaigns take place in Australia. Up to, say, 1975, the public meeting was the key campaigning tool. Since then, alas, demonstrators and wreckers have made public meetings impossible. The launch before hand-picked audiences and the National Press Club address by each leader became the critical elements. How much better to have head-to-head debates as the main campaign element! Debates provide a direct and immediate comparison, enabling the audience to make a better judgment.
Dr Hewson wanted three debates with only a moderator. The ALP has called for a small panel of journalists and two debates. The precise formula is to be worked out. It does not seem likely that this time either candidate will back out on a technicality. For the future, however, it is imperative that, perhaps in a non-campaign period, that the two major parties acknowledge there will always be debates in future campaigns and to work out some independently based system to decide their format, so that a future candidate who did not abide by the independently worked out rules could be seen as a coward. It would be tragic if the performance of one or other candidate in one campaign were to result in the abandonment of future debates.