If it takes one to spot one I feel well qualified to explain the reluctance of Team Gillard to take part in televised debates with Tony Abbott.

Since 1984, every Australian federal election campaign bar one has featured at least one televised debate between the leaders of the two major parties. The exception was in 1987 and very much at my urging.

As the person that year largely responsible for Bob Hawke’s itinerary I thought it important to avoid a repeat of the tactical misjudgment of the previous election (when I was not involved in the campaign) that gave the rank outsider Andrew Peacock the chance to show on national television that he actually was an experienced and competent politician. It was the once bitten twice shy approach as far as I was concerned and despite the wails of protest from an aggrieved media Hawke subdued his ego and went along with denying John Howard the opportunity to display his debating skills.

Since then, for some reason I don’t really understand, prime ministers have been bullied into giving their opponent something like an even break by allowing debates to become a regular part of the campaign process. I say something like an even break advisedly because the new generation of campaign strategists advising incumbents clearly have come to share my distaste for giving an opportunity for an opponent to shine in a head-to-head encounter.

Before recent polls there has been but one debate with that held as far away from polling day as possible. Hence this year it seems that, despite a brave promise made by Kevin Rudd to engage in three televised debates during a campaign, this Sunday will be the only occasion when the public can judge Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott when appearing on the same platform.

For the front-running Labor team it is a happy coincidence that debate night will coincide with the showing of the grand final episode of the top-rating MasterChef program (though there are reports the timing could be moved to 6:30 to avoid the clash). That will substantially reduce the risk of Abbott making any gains from a superior performance should he manage one.

Analysis of the impact of debate performance on subsequent voting behaviour in Australia is limited, but the conclusions from the paper Electoral Impact of Televised Leaders’ Debates in Australian Federal Elections by Philip Senior of the Department of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney published in 2006 seem sensible enough to me. Among other things Senior has found from analysing the Australian Election Study series for elections since 1990 is that whilst the data suggests debates can affect non-watchers, it also appears to confirm that the perception that one leader won the debates generally has a greater influence on vote choice for debate watchers than it does for non-watchers.

In essence, views formed directly appear to have a stronger impact than those formed indirectly through the extensive media coverage of the debates as well as the significant interpersonal discussion the debates generate.

Senior says the data appears to provide support for three distinct debate impacts. Firstly, it appears that debates exert the greatest influence on those voters who do not identify with any party but who perceive one or other of the major party leaders to have performed better in the debates. Secondly, it appears that for partisan identifiers who perceive the debates consistently with their identification, a ‘reinforcement effect’ may occur, but it will generally be modest. Thirdly, it appears that partisan identifiers who perceive the debate result inconsistently with their identification may have their vote choice influenced far more substantially.