Australia’s peak health bodies have not declared a winner from Tuesday’s leaders debate, labelling the clash a predictable sparring session that was more about politics than policy.

Whether Prime Minister Kevin Rudd or Opposition Leader Tony Abbott won the debate at the National Press Club depends on who you ask.

The commercial television “worm” made a return and was generally up for Mr Rudd and not so much for Mr Abbott.

Treasurer Wayne Swan said Mr Rudd had a plan while Mr Abbott had a “grudge”.

The Opposition’s health spokesman, Peter Dutton, said he thought the public would “like what they see” from Mr Abbott.

“I don’t think anybody will ever stand in any doubt what Tony Abbott is thinking. He speaks his mind. He’s direct,” Mr Dutton said.

But the Australian Medical Association (AMA) says the debate was all about politics with a little bit of policy mixed in.

AMA president Dr Andrew Pesce says Mr Abbott’s commitment to fund 3,500 extra beds in the public hospital system is welcome.

“That’s something which we’ve been calling for for years, so that’s a good thing,” Dr Pesce said.

And he says he is glad Mr Rudd has changed his mind over country hospital funding.

Small hospitals could now be eligible to continue receiving block funding rather than being forced into the case-mix system, under which funding is dished out on a per-patient basis.

“I think it’s one-all in new policy,” Dr Pesce said. “They’re both important announcements, so we’re pleased to hear that from both people.

“I’m not saying one was the winner.”

The change for country hospitals has also been welcomed by the Rural Doctors Association of Australia (RDAA).

“We’ve been working very hard lobbying for that to happen since the announcement the Prime Minister made a couple of weeks ago,” said RDAA chief executive Steve Sant.

“The end result [of the case-mix system] would have been a number of rural hospitals would have closed. They would have been unviable.

“But there wasn’t a great deal of substance in [the debate] to be quite truthful. So to some extent it was a boring debate.”

Lack of detail

Martin Laverty from Catholic Health Australia said he was disappointed with the lack of policy detail from both sides.

“For those who wanted some entertainment over lunch, they got a bit of that,” he said.

“But for people waiting on public hospital queues for surgery, they’re not going to get it any sooner.

“The Prime Minister could have outlined the detail as to how hospital networks were going to work. He could have outlined how he was going to extend choice, access and sustainability to Australia’s aged care system.

“Similarly, the Opposition Leader could have detailed how his plan for hospitals would improve access to public services around the nation.”

Cydde Miller from the Australian Healthcare and Hospital Association said the debate would have been more worthwhile if Mr Abbott had released more policy.

“I think it really was quite predictable in that it was just a bit of a sparring session,” she said. “And that’s quite disappointing, I think, for voters.”

Ferocity and composure

Dr Mukesh Haikerwal, a former head of the AMA, said there was one fighter and one more placid player in the debate.

“I think it’s up to people how they like to see their politics played, with ferocity or with composure,” he said.

The commercial television “worm” made its return and found Mr Rudd to be the clear winner.

But the Liberal Party’s federal director, Brian Loughnane, read it differently.

“I think it was very good for Tony Abbott. Tony Abbott clearly established himself as an alternate prime minister,” Mr Loughnane said.

Former Liberal staffer and political commentator Grahame Morris points out there is a long way to go until polling day.

“They both did their jobs. The Prime Minister gets the bed pan award and Tony Abbott gets the thermometer award,” Mr Morris said.

“These sorts of things tweak polls a little bit, but come election day, today won’t matter one jot.”