Chief Minister Andrew Barr and Opposition Leader Elizabeth Lee had just 30 minutes of prime time television to make their case to ACT voters.
Early voting has begun and election day is less than two weeks away. Plenty of voters will have already made up their minds, but the two major party leaders wasted no time on the ABC-moderated debate trying to win support.
Legislative Assembly reporters Lucy Bladen and Jasper Lindell were on hand at the National Press Club on Tuesday night to determine how the leaders fared. Without comparing notes, here's what they found.
Barr and Lee stick close to their scripts
There's only so much that can happen in a half-hour debate, writes Lucy Bladen. In a political landscape where few are engaged throughout a four-year term, leaders are limited in what they can exhibit and the messages they can sell on prime-time television.
But for those who closely watch ACT politics the debate would not have come as a surprise.
Chief Minister Andrew Barr and Opposition Leader Elizabeth Lee played closely to the scripts they have followed the past four years with only some slight surprises.
Mr Barr started the debate by resorting to the oft-used statement that the ACT government cannot do it alone and they need to rely on the federal government. He said his party's focus was on Canberra households meeting the cost-of-living and federal government polices, such as the $300 electricity rebate needed to complement territory government policy.
Ms Lee's pitch began with highlighting the ACT government's failures over the past 23 years, saying Canberrans had been failed.
Any chance of the debate taking a positive turn were quickly diminished once election costings came up. Ms Lee was quick to attack the government. Canberrans wanting a positive campaign would not be granted this wish.
The weak moment for Ms Lee came when the Labor leader was able to attack the Liberals' lack of policy costings. The Liberals costs have not been made public, Ms Lee said the party has submitted some and they would be fully costed before October 19.
But that was a downfall for the party. If they were prepared it is something they should have submitted early so voters could have a full understanding. In failing to do this, they let Mr Barr have the upper hand and it showed in the debate.
When it came to health, Ms Lee had a slight advantage. Mr Barr relied on his government's record of building hospitals but given they have been in power for 23 years it is something that one expects. For a Canberran on an elective surgery waitlist this would not be something they would be impressed by.
Ms Lee pointing out the failures of the health system would resonate with a casual ACT politics watcher more.
Ms Lee's strongest moment came when she was asked about the demotions of former Liberal MLA Elizabeth Kikkert and Jeremy Hanson.
While the Opposition Leader has skirted around the issues during the term she gave her best answer yet. She said as a leader you need to make tough decisions and these were an example of times she has shown this.
Mr Barr's arguments did show more substance than Ms Lee. His experience in politics showed. But Ms Lee would more likely impress those fed up with the state of ACT politics. She is a strong debater and that came across on the night.
Points to Barr on substance, Lee in front on delivery
It was a close run thing, but Chief Minister Andrew Barr was ahead on substance, while Opposition Leader Elizabeth Lee was ahead on presentation, writes Jasper Lindell.
You'd have to hope after 18 years in the Legislative Assembly, Mr Barr would be across the detail. On Tuesday night, he proved he was. The stoic face familiar from weeks of COVID-19 press conferences three years ago was on display as the Chief Minister outlined clear, coherent positions in all the topics raised by the ABC's moderator, James Glenday.
Where Elizabeth Lee lacked - or avoided - detail on the Canberra Liberals' positions, she made up for it with dynamic presentation. She was lively as she repeatedly made her central argument: Labor has been in too long and the problems that abound in the city are ones the party will never fix.
The issue of costings, which has hung over the campaign in recent days, remained an unforced error for Ms Lee at the debate.
"The fact is that no one should be taking advice on economic or fiscal policy from the worst treasurer that self government has seen," she said, as she expertly avoided the actual question of how much her party's payroll tax claims would cost.
Indeed, Labor's claim of a $1 billion budget blackhole looks shaky now that the Liberals have provided more detail about their tax plans. But Ms Lee's quick shift to talking about Labor's failures rather than the Liberal plan showed Ms Lee was more comfortable offering pointy, sharp criticism than offering a working alternative.
One of Mr Barr's broad themes was the importance of partnership with other governments to deliver on the outcomes Labor envisions for Canberra.
Asked about cost of living, he pointed to electricity rebates the ACT and the federal government had delivered in partnership.
"The focus for the government is on helping Canberra households to make cost of living challenges. It's not something that we can do alone. It does require the partnership of the Australian government," he said.
The Chief Minister also talked up his fresh commitment, now at the level of the NSW Premier, for improving the train service to Sydney. He was quick to point out the role of federal Liberal governments' funding decisions in determining the fortunes of the territory's health system. And light rail to Woden would be a 50-50 deal with the Commonwealth.
It was clear headed, well put and made sense. Restricted to one-minute statements, Mr Barr could not offer the full breadth of his arguments. He appealed to "simple fact checks" but could not deliver the knock out blows in the time allotted.
Ms Lee, meanwhile, wanted to draw attention back to what she saw as Mr Barr's failures and away from questions of her own alternatives.
Not afraid to interject, Ms Lee certainly livened up the debate but no knock out arguments followed. It could have left viewers with the impression that Labor may well be knackered, but the Liberals' vision was more motherhood statements than action items.
Such a tight debate had the feeling of cutting away from the 800-metre track race at the 100-metre mark. A winner needed to go the distance, beyond what we already expected of their campaign pitches, but there just wasn't enough distance in this forum to go.
