Opposition leader snaps 'Does this guy ever shut up?' when Rudd presses him on unreleased costings in leaders' debate

Tony Abbott has conceded his 1.5% levy on big business will cover only half the cost of his $5.5bn paid parental leave scheme, as his unreleased policy costings dogged the Coalition leader’s otherwise confident performance in the second leaders’ debate in Brisbane.

As Kevin Rudd pressed him to reveal the detailed costings, Abbott snapped: “Does this guy ever shut up?” Rudd shot back: “We’re having a discussion, mate. That’s a standard debating technique when the questions get a bit sharp.”

Pressed by Rudd in the lively debate at the Broncos Leagues Club in Brisbane, Abbott answered the question he and his ministers had been avoiding for days.

“The levy will cover about a half of the scheme,” he said, saying that along with money already in the budget to pay for Labor’s less generous scheme and the rolling-in of state schemes, the costings would eventually show his “signature policy” for working women was fully funded.

Rudd said the scheme was the perfect example of his case against Abbott because it was “unfair and unaffordable”, offered money to millionaires and would require as yet unspecified cuts to other basic government services.

Asked, by one of the 100 undecided voters who put questions to the leaders, about how they would counter the “low quality” of some political candidates on both sides, Rudd revealed he wanted to “head in the direction” of grassroots pre-selection for federal Labor candidates.

Abbott said he accepted “not all candidates are equally outstanding” but went on to extol the virtues of Bill Glasson, the Liberal candidate standing against Rudd in his Brisbane seat of Griffith, who was in the audience.

With national polls showing Labor trailing the Coalition at the mid-point of the campaign 47%-53% on a two-party preferred basis, the debate crystalised the central arguments of both leaders.

Reminding the Queensland audience of state government public service cuts after the election of the Liberal National party government of Premier Campbell Newman, Rudd homed in on his central attack that Abbott has not yet revealed his budget costings, which he says must contain significant cuts to pay for his promised tax reductions and spending.

Abbott sought to keep the focus squarely on Labor’s record, closing with the argument that Rudd had not told the audience how he was going to make good his vow to “build for the future” because he had already had “six years” to do it.

“The thing that has disappointed me and perhaps disappointed you in this debate is really all Mr Rudd has had to say tonight is a scare against his opponent. Surely after six years you should be able to do better than that,” Abbott said.

Unlike the last debate at the National Press Club 10 days ago, which ended in an uninspiring draw, Wednesday’s clash allowed each leader to question the other and the exchanges were more fiery and less scripted.

Abbott criticised the government’s new 0.05% levy on bank deposits, rejecting its stated purpose of paying for the government deposit guarantee and saying it was “just another tax”.

“Let’s not try to justify a tax grab now with reference to the global financial crisis four years ago,” he said, but refused to rule out keeping the impost.

And he said categorically the Coalition would not be withdrawing from the United Nations refugee convention, despite his immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, having previously indicated this was “an option”.

The pair also clashed over the environment, with Abbott saying he regarded himself as a conservationist and Rudd saying it was impossible to “be a committed conservationist unless you are fully committed to the fight against climate change”.

Abbott remained steadfast in his opposition to gay marriage, after Rudd committed in the last debate to introduce a bill legalising same-sex marriage within 100 days of the re-election of a Labor government.

“As long as I am in the parliament that is the way I will vote,” Abbott said, but said it would be a matter for the Liberal party room to decide whether MPs would be allowed to exercise a conscience vote.