Thank you so much for your most excellent company for debate night, let’s close our coverage for now with a summary.  Enough for tonight, we’ll be back bright and early on the morrow. Have a lovely evening.  Picture of the night. Magic Mike Bowers. Take a bow.  It’s a funny thing about preparation. It was clear that all the prep did allow both leaders to sharpen a couple of their answers, and to adjust their messaging in places where it was beneficial to add a human dimension, or a personal story. It did, in the end, improve the communication of both leaders, once they got clear of the mind bog, which took the best part of thirty minutes.  The preparation for Turnbull allowed him to present glimpses of his old self – the ‘I paid a high price for climate leadership’ would have been workshopped behind the scenes within an inch of its life, but it sounded clear, and it sounded like him. Shorten too found his voice on the rebuttals on border protection, and in the story he’s now trying to tell about growth – you can’t have growth without fairness. I think that was all strong for Shorten, and it bodes well for the coming weeks on the hustings.  You can’t blame the prep for strangling the conversation, it did aid it in a way. I think if the debate had gone into a second hour, it could have actually been a cracker.  It’s hard to say why that encounter was so limiting, but it really was limiting. As I get a moment to share some pictures and exhale I’ll share some more thoughts.  Well, only one thing to say initially – that was a deeply weird hour.  Initially, the two leaders couldn’t get out of their own road. Nerves, second guessing, spouting buzz words.  Then the format well and truly strangled them. I think both leaders will feel that was unfulfilling from a campaign perspective. I can’t imagine voters would have learned a great deal.  It’s hard to declare a winner from that encounter because it was like an hour spent in quick sand.  My view is a draw, but with that said, I suspect that Bill Shorten will be relieved by the questioning tonight, which could have been a lot trickier for him than it was in truth. Yes, much of the debate was spent in economy territory and in border protection territory, and conventional wisdom says the Coalition wins when that’s the case, but I thought Shorten kept his feet in both areas.  And we are already into closing statements.  Malcolm Turnbull says only the Coalition has a plan for growth.  The reality is Labor has a plan for spending, it has a plan for higher taxes, it does not have anything to say about growth. It has nothing to say that will deliver stronger growth. Every element of our plan does that. And that secures the opportunities for every Australian. It secures our future. It enables us to remain a high-wage first-world economy with a generous social welfare safety net. Without that strong economy, we can’t pay for any of the promises that are being debated in this election. The foundation, the fundamental basis, of everything we are considering tonight and over the next five weeks must be strong economic growth. We have a plan and our opponents do not.  The Labor view is that you can’t separate economic growth into one column and fairness in the other. To have sustainable growth you need to have fairness. By contrast, Mr Turnbull’s only plan is a great big spending giveaway of $50bn to corporations.  Q: If I could turn to a policy where you like to differentiate from each other which is coming back to climate change. Isn’t it true that when your safeguards mechanism kicks in prime minister there will actually be very little difference between your climate change policy and Labor’s, and do the two of you agree that what we actually need to achieve on climate policy on the next term of government is bipartisanship?  Malcolm Turnbull says he believes in the science, and has paid a high price for that belief.  My view is, as somebody who is committed to action on climate change and who has paid a high price for my commitment to that issue, for my commitment to global action in the past, my commitment is to ensure that Australia meets the target we agreed to in Paris and when the global community agrees to higher targets, as I have no doubt it will, that we will meet them, too. But I believe we should move with the global community rather than taking unilateral action that will not influence global action.  Bill Shorten says there is a price to not acting as well as a price embedded in acting.  Malcolm, whatever happened to the old Malcolm Turnbull on climate change? You were so impressive when you were leading on climate change. Now you’re just implementing Tony Abbott’s policies.  Q: What’s your plan to stop 1600 people staying indefinitely on Nauru or Manus when clearly resettlement options in third-world countries or developing nations is unattractive to many of these detainees. And will you rule out letting any of these detainees come to Australia?  Malcolm Turnbull says the Coalition is committed to ensuring that “they are treated humanely and have the opportunity to return from whence they came, to the countries they came from, or be resettled in other countries.”  But they will not come to Australia.  Bill Shorten he would send the immigration minister immediately to “sit down with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, to work through how we can have regional resettlement which stops people being kept in indefinite detention.”  Andrew Probyn points out that John Howard allowed people to settle in Australia despite talking tough about border protection.  Malcolm Turnbull says times are different. People smugglers use social media, modern technology to distribute their message. The reality is that every time there is a change in the debate here, they are out there marketing and saying: “Look, there’ll be an opportunity.”  Turnbull says you can’t trust Labor not to cave to the people smugglers.  Shame on you Mr Turnbull for what you just said.  Shame on you for giving the people smugglers any hope they could be back in business. I have made it very clear what the Labor government would do. We would defeat the people smugglers. We accept the role of boat turnbacks as we should because we don’t want to see the people smugglers back in business. Mr Turnbull is playing with fire when he says that somehow Labor would be a better deal – and he shouldn’t say that because he just conceded in his own remarks that the people smugglers are efficient and watching every bit of the debate.
Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten face off in the second debate of election 2016. All the developments from the National Press Club in Canberra, live