It was virtually inevitable that under the current circumstances, Tony Abbott would turn down the offer of a second debate against Julia Gillard. Why? Because Abbott recognises how much he has to lose from such an offer, and how much she has to gain.
In election debates, there is generally a lesser burden placed upon opposition leaders - as long as they stay in control, assert authority, and avoid saying anything embarrassingly stupid, they are likely to gain the interest of at least some viewers. Witness Kevin Rudd's debate performance against John Howard in 2007 - by no means was he an especially persuasive speaker, in fact, one could argue that his performance was not substantially better than Gillard's last week. Yet the novelty of a fresh-faced, enthusiastic candidate, when contrasted with a seemingly-exhausted Howard who consistently avoided unfavourable questions, and equivocated on the notion of leadership change, was enough to provide Rudd with almost universally positive headlines the next day. His campaign gained momentum.
In last week's debate, Abbott was undoubtedly less effective than Rudd was three years ago, yet by the same token, the simple fact that he was able to hold his own against Gillard has given the Opposition's campaign an unexpected (and possibly critical) boost. Many may have forgotten by now Abbott's performance in the 2007 health debate against then-Shadow Health Minister Nicola Roxon; the debate was an unqualified disaster - Abbott arrived late, his responses were off-the-cuff and unnecessarily defensive, and he made the mistake of berating Ms Roxon once the debate was over, but whilst the cameras and microphones were still recording.
The fact that this time, Abbott was able to keep his temper (for the most part) under control, and give an effective, if still terribly underwhelming performance, was enough for him to get positive coverage in most newspapers the next day. Whilst he did not necessarily win the debate (in my opinion he definitely did not), the simple reality that he managed to hold his own against Gillard meant that it was he who received the most benefit from the debate.
Mr. Abbott will not agree to a second debate, because he knows that Ms Gillard would use it as an attempt to steal the momentum he has gained since last week. She is a consistently compelling parliamentary orator, and has the ability to really undermine Abbott's credibility. More importantly, I'm sure no one is more aware of Abbott's short fuse and unfortunate predilection for hasty declarations than he himself. Any further debate is a liability for Abbott, and when he is polling in front, he has no good reason to agree to one.
Tom Sutherland,
Melbourne University Debating Society