The election debate got personal on Tuesday night when Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton argued about the lies being told in this campaign.

In a heated exchange during the third election debate, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton found themselves at loggerheads over issues of integrity and truthfulness. As both leaders threw accusations of dishonesty, their debates also revealed deeper character dynamics. Dutton attempted to project a more personable image, using personal anecdotes from his police officer past, while Albanese countered with policy attacks, especially targeting Dutton's historical connections to the Coalition government. Key moments included Albanese ruling out any coalition with the Greens amid Dutton's insinuations about Labor's plans, and a pointed exchange regarding the migration cap where Dutton avoided giving a direct answer. The format of the debate, with strict 60-second answers, curtailed long-winded speaking and created a fast-paced environment beneficial to both leaders but particularly suited to Albanese's direct style, which helped him to maintain an edge amidst competition. Observers concluded the debate was largely a draw, with neither candidate achieving a significant improvement in their political stance. The contention surrounding truthfulness, however, marked a significant aspect of the exchange, reflecting an overall cynicism among voters towards politician credibility. While Dutton needed a clear victory, he fell short: his efforts to depict Albanese as 'loose with the truth' did not resonate strongly enough to sway general public perception. Albanese's response that 'kindness is not weakness' aimed to tackle assumptions of his leadership style effectively. The debate highlighted both leaders' attempts to connect with voters personally and politically, yet did not yield results favoring a substantial shift in polling standings. Overall, it was a reminder of how character and integrity will play pivotal roles as Australians prepare to cast their votes, against a backdrop of economic uncertainties, social media impacts, and fluctuating public trust in political narratives.