Who Gets to Debate? Public Broadcasting and Fair Electoral Contest in South Australia

As South Australians approach the next state election, public discussion is naturally dominated by personalities, campaign promises, and polling momentum.

Yet beneath the daily campaign cycle sits a quieter structural question that rarely receives sustained attention:

Who gets to participate in leaders’ debates?

This may seem like a procedural detail. In practice, it shapes how voters understand the political contest itself.

In several recent articles examining South Australia’s election environment, I’ve explored related questions about media visibility, campaign funding, and constitutional structure.

Each of these issues points toward a broader theme: how democratic institutions influence which voices voters ultimately hear.

Debate inclusion is one of those institutional decisions.

The ABC Debate Announcement.

This discussion is not merely theoretical.

The ABC recently announced it will host a leaders’ debate between the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia leaders ahead of South Australia’s upcoming state election.

ABC Adelaide promotional graphic announcing a South Australian leaders debate between Premier Peter Malinauskas and Opposition Leader Ashton Hurn ahead of the state election.

The debate announcement reflects a long-standing election format in which the leaders of the two major parties face questions ahead of polling day. While such forums provide voters with an opportunity to hear from those most likely to form government, they also raise a broader institutional question: when a publicly funded national broadcaster hosts election debates, should the platform reflect the full range of political competition present in the electorate?

The ABC is not simply another media outlet competing for ratings or audience share. It is Australia’s national public broadcaster, funded largely by taxpayers. Australians contribute roughly $1.2 billion annually to support the organisation’s television, radio, and digital services. Public funding carries public responsibility. When a publicly funded broadcaster hosts election debates, those forums become part of the democratic infrastructure through which voters encounter competing political ideas. This does not require including every candidate on the ballot. But it raises a legitimate question:

Should a publicly funded national broadcaster limit leaders’ debates to only two parties in a multi-party system?

Private broadcasters may understandably prioritise ratings or commercial incentives.

A public broadcaster operates under a different mandate. Its responsibility is to inform the public and contribute to the health of democratic discourse. If taxpayers fund the platform, it is reasonable for taxpayers to expect that the platform reflects the breadth of the democratic contest.

Debate Platforms Shape Perception

Leaders’ debates are not merely media events. They function as high-visibility forums that signal political legitimacy. Debate inclusion influences:

• Which parties are perceived as viable contenders

• How media narratives frame the election

• Which policy ideas receive sustained scrutiny

• How voters interpret the range of available choices

In an earlier examination of South Australia’s media environment, I noted that election coverage frequently narrows toward a two-party narrative even when the political landscape is more complex. See - Why South Australian Elections Feel Like Two-Horse Races, Even When They Aren’t

This tendency does not necessarily arise from bias. It reflects the structural incentives of modern media: time pressure, audience familiarity, and the gravitational pull of leadership contests. But the effect can still compress the public conversation.

When debate stages include only two parties despite broader electoral competition, the public picture of the election may become narrower than the political reality.

A Multi-Party Reality

Australia operates under preferential voting, and crossbench representation frequently influences legislative outcomes. Parties such as the Australian Greens maintain an established parliamentary presence. Meanwhile, parties like Pauline Hanson's One Nation continue to demonstrate measurable electoral support.

Recent polling has also suggested that One Nation is attracting notable levels of voter support, including in South Australia. In some surveys this places the party ahead of traditional minor parties and positions it, at least in polling terms, as a potential alternative opposition voice within the broader political landscape.

At the same time, the Liberal Party, historically the principal opposition to Labor governments, has faced internal divisions and declining membership in several jurisdictions.

Whether these trends ultimately translate into seats is a decision for voters.

But polling itself reflects voter sentiment, and debates exist partly to test political propositions before voters make those decisions.

If a growing number of Australians are exploring alternatives beyond the traditional two-party dynamic, debate forums should reflect that reality. Debate inclusion is not endorsement, it's a recognition of political reality.

Debate as Scrutiny, Not Promotion

Some argue that leaders’ debates should only include parties likely to form government.

There is logic in that view. Executive authority carries weight, and voters deserve to hear directly from those who may assume it.

But debates also serve another purpose. They are mechanisms of scrutiny.

Major party leaders are asking voters to entrust them with executive authority, control over legislation, expenditure, and administration. That authority warrants rigorous examination.

Additional party leaders can strengthen that scrutiny by:

• Challenging assumptions in major party policy

• Testing consistency across portfolios

• Exposing areas of overlap or consensus

• Pressing leaders to clarify ambiguous positions

Accountability is strengthened when scrutiny comes from multiple directions.

Visibility, Funding, and Democratic Competition

Debate access also intersects with another structural issue: campaign finance.

As discussed previously when examining South Australia’s electoral funding system, “when funding mirrors existing power too closely, it creates a closed loop.” See -

The High Cost of Entry: Why South Australia's Funding Rules Risk Freezing Democracy

Parties with the most votes receive the most funding, that funding strengthens organisational capacity, organisational capacity increases visibility, visibility helps secure future votes.

Over time this cycle can reinforce stability but also reduce permeability to new entrants.

Debates are one of the few civic platforms capable of interrupting that cycle by exposing voters to a broader range of political voices.

So, do we have a fair electoral contest in South Australia?

Democratic legitimacy does not rest solely on counting votes accurately.

It also rests on whether the contest itself appears open and visible.

In earlier reflections on South Australia’s constitutional environment, I observed that elections operate within institutional frameworks that shape how representation functions. See - Beyond the Campaign: The Constitutional Questions Behind South Australia’s 2026 Election

Debate access is one of those frameworks. Exclusion, even when procedurally defensible, can create the perception that political competition is being curated rather than openly contested. Confidence in democratic institutions is built slowly and eroded quietly.

Before We Vote

Elections are moments of civic choice, but they are also moments for reflection on the structures through which democratic choice operates.

In a previous article on the responsibilities of citizens during elections, I wrote:

“Democracy is not sustained by blind trust, nor by constant suspicion. It is sustained by citizens who are willing to ask questions calmly, listen carefully, and hold power to account.” See - South Australia, Before We Vote: Power, Accountability, and the Questions That Matter

That principle applies here. Debate inclusion standards may appear technical, but technical details shape democratic trust. The question is not merely who stands on stage. It is whether the stage reflects the electorate, and the question remains - is it a Fair Electoral Contest in South Australia?

SUBSCRIBE