Ask Bucko

I have to disagree with Jim Chambers, who on election night in 2025 thought it inappropriate to “dance on Peter Dutton’s grave”. From the first moment he rose to political prominence Peter Dutton demonstrated a ‘nasty’ edge.

Australians were more used to “no-go” areas, which meant that the more reactionary your views were, the more circumspect you needed to be when delivering them.

Dutton never held back. He sent a signal to those on the far right that the sky did not fall in if you expressed opinions that most of us found objectionable. His targets ranged from Aborigines to refugees, to Lebanese migrants, to non-binary people, to same sex marriage and the whole of the “woke” community.

As he rose within the party under Scott Morrison, his public statements and general demeanour drifted further toward a ‘strong man’ persona. He continued to rise, which proved a successful career path for him. He projected certainty, and an unwillingness to apologise, no matter the evidence against his position.

He was exactly the wrong person to lead the Liberal Party out of the wilderness after their loss in 2022. In fact, if the Liberals were on their way to irrelevance before he became leader, his stint was notable for finishing the journey to electoral oblivion.

Where to begin? His public pronouncements and actions were cumulative. John Howard had, years earlier, crossed the line with his comments about Asian immigration, but he had learned to toe the line with Australians.

So we forgive momentary lapses, but we can’t overlook someone who antagonises half the electorate, and never apologises, nor retreats. By the time of the 2025 election most Australians had formed an opinion of Dutton, and it amounted to disdain for his ‘take no prisoners’ style, and a dislike of his personality, which divided the country.

By the time the referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament (2023) came around, close to two thirds of the country approved of the measure. Although Dutton would angrily refuse to accept that his decision to oppose it was racist, it displayed an unseemly interest in using a particular group of Australians as ‘the other’, for political gain.

He walked out of Kevin Rudd’s apology to the “Stolen Generations” in 2007, an act which many felt was unfeeling and needlessly political. It did contribute to his reputation for crude, thoughtless reaction to humanitarian issues.

This could have been an encouragement to those who were disaffected by the notion of indigenous recognition, let alone any form of reconciliation.

So the campaign to defeat the later referendum (2023) served to jog peoples’ memories of his earlier indiscretion. Dutton himself had, in the meantime, apologised for walking out on the apology.

Whatever their motivation to vote against the proposition, Peter Dutton was able to build a successful NO campaign; it was built around the slogan, “If you don’t know, vote No.” Most commentators felt the win was more substantive than it really was, but the damage was done.

Notwithstanding the hurt and humiliation dealt to the indigenous community, this repudiation of a mainly symbolic change to the Constitution was treated as if it meant the victory of good over evil, and a vindication of the Liberal Party, and of Peter Dutton. It also knocked the wind out of Albanese’s sails for a considerable time.

Anthony Albanese also sold the referendum badly. He made mistakes throughout the campaign, and Dutton’s relentless negativity, and the annoying slogan all helped to give permission to those less inclined to symbolic gestures, to vote No.

Other decisions, such as that to throw the consensus on net zero aside, and to wholeheartedly embrace nuclear power managed to alienate the young, and his unwillingness to debate the costs of nuclear power added to an impression of unthinking and wrong-headed assertiveness.

Australians had already accepted the need to transition to renewable energy, and the idea of throwing away all the gains made, as well as the investment already incurred, seemed dopey and ill-informed.

Anyway, Dutton lost the election, somewhat surprisingly, and also his seat. An unmourned exit, to a person who made a virtue of showing only the humourless and inhumane side of his personality.

There was the odd puff piece in newspapers, trying to show a softer, more human side to the man, but it was a losing battle. The people did not hold back, and there was an element of “good riddance” attached to his resounding defeat.

Of course we all expected that the Liberal Party would understand the reasons for their electoral collapse, and move to rectify them. But the election of Sussan Ley was only window dressing.

The right wing of the party was intent on committing electoral suicide, and Angus Taylor would be the instrument. He quickly won the leadership from Sussan Ley, and completed the swing to the right.

Confirming the decision to remove the commitment to net zero was the first step, and in a misguided effort to counter the rise of Pauline Hanson and One Nation, he flagged a discriminatory immigration policy, somehow based not on race, but on “Australian values”, which is surely in the eye of the beholder.

He has since doubled down on these errors of judgement. Australians in general know the benefits of immigration, and he is barking up the wrong tree if he thinks he will win back the inner city electorates by promoting dog-whistle policies.

Taylor also proposed a Coalition policy to strip permanent residents and non-citizens of access to 17 taxpayer-funded welfare programs. Under the plan, safety nets like the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), JobSeeker, and paid parental leave would be restricted exclusively to Australian citizens.

So Peter Dutton might be gone, but Angus Taylor is still here to beguile those who want to vote for a man who isn’t very good with numbers, but looks good in a pair of moleskins. Well done, Angus.