Dutton’s leadership and far-right politics

In our end of year assessment of leadership in Australian politics, we look at the performance of the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton.

Peter Dutton’s leadership of the Liberal Party has attempted to redefine the political landscape in Australia, not by the strength of his policies or vision for the country, but through a calculated strategy of divisiveness and negativity. His approach has injected some energy into the Liberal Party, placing it in a more competitive position against the Albanese government. However, this resurgence has come at a significant cost to the fabric of Australian politics and society. Dutton’s tactics, characterised by relentless attacks devoid of substantive policy proposals, have not only dragged the Liberal Party further to the right but also granted legitimacy to harmful ideologies that thrive on exclusion and fear.

The Liberal Party, under Dutton’s leadership, has moved sharply towards their age-old political tactic of culture wars and dog-whistle rhetoric, a tactic not built on a comprehensive policy platform but on exploiting social and cultural divisions for short-term political gain. The narrative of being “anti-woke” and the promotion of reactionary agendas – such as opposing renewable energy while advocating for nuclear power and fossil fuels – are emblematic of this strategy. These positions align closely with the interests of mining magnates such as Gina Rinehart and other corporate elites, and suggests a leadership more concerned with serving powerful lobbies than addressing the needs of ordinary Australians.

This is a leadership which fosters a political environment where the focus is on tearing down opponents rather than offering constructive solutions. By giving voice to racism, sexism, ableism, and other forms of discrimination, Dutton has created a platform that encourages individuals to reject introspection and responsibility, a rhetoric which allows people to embrace their biases under the combative guise of “owning the left” or resisting so-called “woke culture,” often without understanding the complexities of the issues at hand or the consequences of their actions.

This lack of accountability is not just a byproduct of Dutton’s leadership; it is a deliberate strategy. By framing progressive values as threats to individual freedom, Dutton taps into a deeply ingrained resistance to change and self-reflection among certain segments of the population. This narrative absolves individuals of the need to consider the impact of their words and actions on others and fosters an insular worldview that prioritises personal convenience over collective wellbeing, undermining the fundamental principles of a fair and equitable society.

By normalising divisive rhetoric and granting permission to express harmful prejudices, Dutton is eroding the social cohesion that underpins a healthy democracy. This mindset not only diminishes the quality of public discourse but also threatens to deepen existing inequalities and social fractures.

While this approach may yield short-term political gains, its long-term consequences for the Liberal Party and the nation are profound. By dragging the party further to the right, Dutton risks alienating moderate voters who seek pragmatic and inclusive leadership. His reliance on negativity and cultural division as political tools reveals a leadership bereft of vision, focused more on exploiting societal anxieties than on addressing the structural challenges facing Australia. As a result, the next election may become a battleground not for competing policy ideas but for the soul of the nation itself – a contest defined by fear, division, and the erosion of shared values.

Why election scrutiny will expose flaws in Dutton’s leadership

Dutton is unquestionable buoyed by a largely uncritical and supportive mainstream media but will inevitably face the test of accountability during a federal election campaign. Despite his current prominence in media coverage, his reliance on controlled, one-sided performances – characterised by limited engagement and avoidance of tough scrutiny – leaves him vulnerable when subjected to the unrelenting demands of an election campaign. The very environment that has shielded him so far, with its favourable narratives and ample airtime, may prove to be his undoing when the spotlight intensifies, as every word and action is subject to public dissection.

An election campaign is an intensive testing site where leaders are expected to articulate their vision, defend their record, and engage with the media and electorate on equal terms. Dutton’s current strategy of avoiding media conferences and his preference for fleeting “smash and grab” appearances, where he delivers pre-rehearsed talking points before retreating, cannot be sustained during the relentless scrutiny of an election. Campaigns require stamina, adaptability, and the ability to withstand sustained questioning, none of which Dutton has demonstrated consistently. While his approach has worked so far in the controlled media ecosystem that often amplifies his narratives, it leaves him unprepared for the pressures of genuine electoral engagement.

The protective shield provided by mainstream media, while significant, is not indestructible. While outlets such as the ABC and commercial networks have been criticised for their disproportionate focus on Dutton, often to the detriment of balanced coverage, their influence on public opinion is not absolute. Media bias, particularly when it’s so overt, can backfire, as audiences increasingly discern the gap between reality and the narratives being pushed.

As the election campaign unfolds in 2025, Dutton’s inability to engage substantively with critical issues will be laid bare. The veneer of strength crafted through controlled media appearances is likely to crack under the weight of sustained pressure, exposing the hollowness of his leadership. While the media’s continued support will attempt to mitigate these shortcomings, it cannot compensate for the absence of genuine policy direction or the failure to inspire confidence in the electorate.

Community independents are threatening Liberal Party strongholds

Dutton’s shift further to the right has created a precarious situation for the Liberal Party, not only alienating moderate voters but also invigorating the rise of community independents, a trend which reflects a broader disenchantment with the major parties and their inability to address the needs of diverse constituencies. The Liberal Party, under Dutton’s leadership, faces mounting challenges in retaining its hold on traditionally safe seats, particularly in urban and metropolitan areas, where progressive and community-driven candidates are gaining traction.

The recent announcement by Paul Fletcher, the Liberal member for Bradfield, that he will not contest the next election is a signal of this growing trend. Bradfield, once considered a Liberal stronghold on Sydney’s North Shore, now appears vulnerable to a community independent, Nicolette Boele, whose grassroots approach resonates with an electorate increasingly disillusioned with the adversarial and divisive politics exemplified by Dutton. If these are the communities that rejected Scott Morrison at the 2022 federal election, they’re hardly going to come rushing back to a Liberal Party which has shifted even further to the right under Dutton’s leadership.

Policies and rhetoric that appeal to a narrow segment of the electorate, such as resistance to progressive social change and an alignment with reactionary cultural and economic agendas, have left the party increasingly out of step with the values of many Australians. This ideological shift not only makes it difficult for the Liberal Party to broaden its appeal but also strengthens the position of community independents and other alternative candidates who present themselves as pragmatic, inclusive, and solutions-oriented.

These community independents have proven particularly effective in urban and suburban electorates, and the success of these independents in past elections, such as in the 2022 federal election, where high-profile candidates such as Monique Ryan, Kylea Tink, Sophie Scamps, Kate Chaney, Allegra Spender and Zoe Daniel unseated Liberal incumbents, suggests a growing appetite for this alternative approach.

The challenges posed by community independents extend beyond the immediate threat of losing seats. They also force the Liberal Party to reckon with internal fractures and a leadership increasingly out of sync with its traditional base. Dutton’s unpopularity within his own party membership highlights this tension. While he has so far avoided serious internal challenges, largely due to a lack of viable alternatives, his position is far from secure. A significant misstep or overreach could embolden dissenting voices within the party, particularly from moderates who see his leadership as an impediment to electoral viability.

The potential for upheaval is heightened by the reality that no seat is truly safe anymore. Even long-held Liberal strongholds are at risk – as shown during the 2022 federal election – as the party’s base erodes under the pressures of demographic change, shifting values, and the appeal of independent candidates. In urban centres, where progressive attitudes are more prevalent, the Liberal Party’s hard-right turn under Dutton has only accelerated its decline.

Dutton’s leadership also casts a long shadow over the cohesion of the Liberal Party. Along with Fletcher, Senator Simon Birmingham and the National’s Keith Pitt, have signalled their retirements: if they felt the Liberal–National Coalition was in a position to win at the next election, and if they were satisfied with the direction of the party, they’d be contemplating new furniture and staff selections for their ministerial offices, rather than announcing their departures from politics.

The main issue is that Dutton is a rigid conservative ideologue, at odds with the broad philosophy of the Liberal Party. Certainly, he is a creature of the hybrid Liberal–National Party in Queensland, which holds 21 of the 30 federal seats in that state and this, by any measure, is a high level of success. His brand of reactionary politics has been successful in Queensland for many decades, but a leader cannot just be the Prime Minister for Queensland – they need to be the Prime Minister for every state and territory across the country, and Dutton is not that person: he is a divider, rather than a unifier.

The ideological pursuits and freelancing by Dutton will test the Liberal Party in its abilities to adapt and while he might be in an electorally favourable position as 2024 draws to an end, he will need to address these challenges in the lead-up to the 2025 election campaign. Otherwise, the Liberal Party will remain mired in its current long-term downhill trajectory.