Divisive politics: examining Dutton’s fear and loathing on the Voice to Parliament

In a political issue marked by increasing polarisation, opposition leader Peter Dutton is attempting to recalibrate his leadership of the Liberal Party by engaging in an increasing racist campaign to vehemently oppose the Voice to Parliament. This move has raised concerns about the tactics employed to undermine a significant step towards Indigenous reconciliation and empowerment and Dutton’s actions not only threaten to deepen divisions within the nation but also shed light on his personal ambitions and the tactics he is willing to employ to achieve them.

The issue gained further traction following the Garma Festival in Arnhem Land, a significant Indigenous cultural event presented annually. The festival showcased a spirit of goodwill and unity, but Dutton’s absence spoke volumes about his stance on Indigenous matters. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s suggestion for Dutton to attend the festival was met with refusal, underscoring the growing divide within the political landscape.

Albanese’s invitation highlighted the significance of the Voice to Parliament, a progressive proposal aimed at addressing historical inequities and fostering greater representation for First Nations people in Australia. However, Dutton’s refusal to engage constructively with Indigenous communities underscores a troubling pattern of avoiding dialogue and perpetuating fear.

Dutton’s engagement with media outlets known for their conservative leanings, such as Ray Hadley’s shock-jock show on 2GB, further indicates a preference for divisive tactics over inclusive discourse. The absence of direct communication with Indigenous communities and the electorate suggests a willingness to stoke the flames of discontent while avoiding accountability.

The opposition leader’s strategy becomes even clearer in the context of the ongoing campaign against the Voice to Parliament and his narrative revolves around sowing seeds of doubt, using fear, and appealing to divisive sentiments. His opposition hinges on insinuations that the Voice to Parliament proposal would empower only a select group of hitherto unknown Indigenous ‘elites’, thereby ignoring the broader benefits for marginalised Indigenous communities.

The underlying motives for Dutton’s stance become evident when viewed through the prism of his own leadership ambitions. With the spectre of the next federal election looming, Dutton appears to be capitalising on divisive tactics to secure his political foothold. However, this approach raises questions about the kind of leadership Australians deserve.

Dutton’s aversion to the Voice to Parliament reflects a broader trend within the conservative political landscape. Employing the familiar playbook of sowing chaos and blaming others for the ensuing division, Dutton’s approach appears more focused on self-preservation than addressing the complex challenges faced by Indigenous communities.

This divisive strategy is not without its critics. Observers argue that Dutton’s tactics rely on fear-mongering and misinformation. By focusing on issues like treaties and the Indigenous Voice, Dutton redirects attention from economic concerns and the cost of living, exploiting public anxieties to maintain his political relevance.

Dutton’s resistance on this occasion is not an isolated incident; it’s part of a larger pattern of utilising fear as a political tool, as well as hostility to Indigenous issues – his opposition hinges on notions of white ‘loss’ and resentment, tapping into fears of dispossession and change. This approach draws comparisons to past instances – in 1997, former Prime Minister John Howard claimed during negotiations on the Wik legislation that 78 per cent of ‘backyards’ were vulnerable to native title claims – where similar tactics were used to stoke division and maintain the status quo.

In contrast, proponents of the Voice to Parliament believe that this initiative represents a step towards Reconciliation and empowerment of First Nations people. Critics of Dutton’s strategy argue that it perpetuates a politics of fear and negativity, sidestepping the constructive dialogue required for meaningful progress. As the opposition leader doubles down on his stance, the divide between those advocating for inclusivity and those appealing to fear continues to widen.

Coalition’s political gamesmanship undermines the national Interest and Indigenous rights

In a recent revelation by the Australian Financial Review, a disturbing pattern of political subterfuge within the Liberal Party has come to light, suggesting that the party’s primary motivation behind their opposition to the Voice to Parliament proposal is not only to quash a vital initiative for First Nations people but to also gain a political upper hand, further highlighting their disregard for the national interest.

In the Senate, Senator Penny Wong astutely pointed out that figures such as Dutton are perpetuating the legacy of former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, consistently prioritising their political agenda over the broader interests of the country and the sentiment expressed by a Liberal Party MP that victory in the upcoming election hinges on defeating the Voice to Parliament underscores this unscrupulous strategy.

The Coalition’s approach reeks of political nihilism, exploiting a matter of public significance – the Voice to Parliament – as a mere pawn in their quest for power. Their meanderings are not only a blow to the aspirations of First Nations people seeking a meaningful platform but also a testament to the Liberal Party’s willingness to exploit any issue, no matter how crucial, for their own political gains.

The focus isn’t on the merits of this proposal or its potential to address historical injustices; rather, it’s a strategic attempt to undermine Prime Minister Albanese. This brand of political opportunism is not only a disservice to the electorate but a grave disservice to the spirit of democracy itself.

Moreover, the commentary on Dutton’s ambitions for the prime ministership is a stark reminder of his divisive history. Dutton, a political figure whose legacy seems rooted in negativity, has consistently demonstrated a propensity for discord whether in government or opposition: walking out of the Apology to the Stolen Generations in 2008; his attempts to sway the result of the 2018 Victoria election with his ‘African gangs’ narrative; his decision to overturn the dual Indigenous naming of army bases while he was Minister for Defense.

His controversial decisions, including overlooking community safety programs in Indigenous communities while serving as Minister for Home Affairs, are emblematic of a leadership style that thrives on chaos.

Critically, this narrative also highlights the vital role of media in upholding democratic values. The lack of stringent scrutiny and accountability from the mainstream media has allowed politicians like Dutton to persist with their self-serving agendas unchecked, thereby perpetuating the erosion of public trust.

As the political landscape continues to evolve, the discourse must shift towards genuine national interests and progressive reforms rather than short-term political victories. The Liberal Party’s calculated moves demonstrate a disregard for the greater good, mirroring global trends of populism and misinformation that ultimately undermine the foundations of a just and equitable society.

Within this context, the Labor government needs to eschew ‘politics of politeness’ in favour of assertiveness is a plea for substantive change. The message resonates with a need for realignment toward policies that reflect centrist Australia and transcend the corrosive influences of divisive politics.

In hindsight, the Labor government’s delay in pushing for a referendum on the Voice to Parliament into the end of 2023 was a mistake, as it allowed room for misinformation campaigns orchestrated by vested interests. This serves as a cautionary tale of missed opportunities and the importance of seizing the momentum when the public sentiment is most favourable, which would have been the case soon after the Labor government was elected in May 2023.

Unmasking the Coalition’s tactics

The underhanded tactics employed by the Liberal and National parties during parliamentary question time have extended this narrative of manipulation, misinformation, and opportunism, and provocative questions from figures such as Dutton and deputy leader Sussan Ley have laid bare a strategic ploy to hijack valuable parliamentary time and create the illusion of inordinate focus on the Voice to Parliament initiative. So why is Albanese taking on these questions with the importance that they do not deserve?

Albanese’s inclination to provide comprehensive answers to seemingly absurd questions has inadvertently played into the Liberal Party hands, allowing them to craft a narrative that he is excessively engrossed in the Voice to Parliament, even though it’s the Liberal Party itself that is obsessed. This tactic serves a dual purpose: firstly, to divert attention from the urgency of rights of First Nations people and constitutional reform, and secondly, to cast Albanese as preoccupied to a fault, thereby painting a picture of unbalanced priorities.

The recurring mention of a ‘conspiracy theory’ surrounding the length of the Uluru Statement from the Heart is a classic case of political smoke and mirrors. The Coalition’s attempt to delegitimise the statement by insinuating that it is longer than it actually is seeks to undermine the credibility of Indigenous voices – as if whether a document is either one page or 26 pages is really a public debate worth having – and reveals the desperation behind the Coalition’s efforts to fabricate discord where there is none.

However, these machinations transcend mere parliamentary tactics. They expose a larger pattern of behaviour that extends back years, all the way back to 1996 with the election of the Howard government, who was elected on the promise of national harmony, only to spend the next 11 years in office creating as much chaos and division as possible, a legacy that still remains with the Liberal Party. The Coalition’s history of divisive strategies, stoking xenophobia, and exploiting societal fault lines for political gain is a stark reminder that their priorities lie more in retaining power than in serving the nation.

The reluctance of the Coalition to support the Voice to Parliament resonates with their larger pattern of resistance to change. Rather than embracing meaningful reform, the Coalition seems locked in a time capsule, clinging to the Howard-era conservatism. This refusal to evolve and address the needs of a changing Australia may ultimately prove detrimental to their political future.

The challenge now for the Labor government, as well as for all Australians, is to demand transparency, accountability, and genuine commitment to the public interest. The Coalition’s gambit to manipulate parliamentary discourse, evade real issues, and exploit divisions should serve as a wakeup call to the electorate.

The responsibility lies with citizens to demand better from their elected representatives and to reject the corrosive brand of politics that prioritises personal ambition over the collective wellbeing of the nation. However, this task is difficult with a compliant mainstream media which is always happy to work in unison with the Coalition in stoking and perpetuating these fears, as is currently being displayed in their magnification and amplification of every small matter that could offer some benefit and improvement for the life of First Nations people.

In the face of these tactics, it is paramount that the Australian people remain vigilant, recognising that the nation’s future hinges on leaders who prioritise the public good over short-term gains. The battle for the soul of Australian democracy is ongoing, and it is imperative that it is fought with unwavering determination, fact-based discourse, and a commitment to a better and more just future.

Ultimately, Dutton’s refusal to engage with Indigenous communities and his rejection of the Voice to Parliament reflects a regressive approach to politics that prioritises his personal ambitions over the wellbeing of the nation. Australians deserve leaders who are willing to embrace unity, engage in informed dialogue, and work towards a more inclusive future. As the debate continues, the question remains whether Dutton’s divisive tactics will prevail or whether Australia will opt for a path of reconciliation, progress, and hope.