Albanese and Dutton prepared for everything in this debate – but neither prepared a surprise. They were disciplined and on-message.

Who won: This was an even match and ended in a draw. There was no stunning Labor victory. At the same time, Dutton needed to take Albanese down and lift the Coalition’s fortunes, but this goal eluded him on the night.

It was billed as the anti-talking point debate – Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton would be restricted to 60-second answers.

There would be no waffle. Pithiness was encouraged; demanded even.

Of course, it was impossible for either leader to suppress their talking-point impulse entirely.

We heard about Labor waste and the threat Dutton allegedly poses to Medicare.

We heard about cost-of-living relief and plans for housing.

But Tuesday night’s debate – the third in this campaign – did offer more of a glimpse of the man behind the politician, in both cases.

The first glimpse of authenticity came when they clashed over healthcare spending.

Albanese insisted the former Coalition government (specifically the Abbott government) had cut health spending.

Dutton, who was health minister under Tony Abbott, insisted it hadn’t.

“Prime Minister, you couldn’t lie straight in bed,” said Dutton. “It’s unbelievable.”

“Personal abuse,” countered Albanese. “It’s a sign of desperation, frankly.”

“So is lying,” Dutton shot back.

Dutton leaned heavily into his portrayal of the prime minister as “loose with the truth”, and Albanese implied Dutton would be a loose cannon on the world stage, if elected prime minister.

After the barbs were traded (all within a 60 second time-stamp, countdown and all), the questioners moved on to matters of character.

Loading

This is where Dutton was able, for the first time during the campaign, to convey to a large audience the values that comprise his personality and his leadership style.

Had his time on the Queensland police force given him a black-and-white view of the world?

“I think we are all shaped by our life experiences,” the opposition leader said.

“I have always been serious in my public life about protecting people... particularly women and children.”

Albanese was asked about perceptions, fuelled by Coalition attacks, that he is “soft”, at a moment in history when a hard man is perhaps needed.

“Kindness isn’t weakness. Kindness is something I was raised with,” said the prime minister.

Who won: Dutton – he pushed back more and gave articulate answers.

Peter Dutton came into the debate with a clear game plan and decisive line of attack against Anthony Albanese: to brand the prime minister as being loose with the truth.

Dutton came back to this point time and again, including by niggling Albanese by saying he “couldn’t lie straight in bed”.

He was on a mission to get under Albanese’s skin and throw him off balance. Albanese resisted losing his cool, but fired back at Dutton by accusing him of showing signs of desperation by launching personal attacks.

Dutton’s repeated use of this tactic suggests the Coalition’s focus group research has found it effective. But is it an election winner? Speak to ordinary voters and you quickly find many of them – most of them even – are extremely cynical about politicians from all parties and believe they will say whatever it takes to win power.

There’s no sign voters think Albanese is more prone to lying than other politicians and that this should disqualify him from the top job.

Dutton avoided any gaffes and was smart to depersonalise the issue when asked how he would deal with US President Donald Trump. Dutton is aware that being seen as an Aussie version of Trump is a loser with voters and probably overcorrected in the last debate by saying that he does not know Trump personally (yet will achieve a unique trade exemption for Australia).

Dutton steered clear of talking about Trump directly, instead highlighting his work as a Coalition minister dealing with the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations on important bilateral negotiations such as AUKUS.

But he missed a major opportunity to connect with voters when asked whether there is more to him than his persona as a tough former policeman may suggest.

Dutton spoke about how that job had “hardened” him and made him want to help the vulnerable, but could have gone further by telling Australians more about his softer side as a father and husband.

Albanese cut through in this section by saying that “kindness is not weakness” when asked about Coalition claims he has been a weak leader.

This debate was notably more fast-paced and interactive than the previous two we have seen so far in the campaign.

With just one minute to give their answers, the leaders could not make an extended argument to voters before the topic moved on.

The format suited Albanese at this stage of the election cycle. Albanese has been known to be long-winded and the time limit prevented him from going on for too long. Meanwhile, Dutton is behind in the polls and needs to clear the high bar of convincing Australians to turf the government out after a single term.

Besides branding Albanese a liar, there was not a resounding, memorable case for such a dramatic change.

Who won: Dutton put in his best debate performance of the campaign but Albanese came out the winner by a whisker by keeping the campaign frozen in place.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.