Dutton’s Australia: Divided, Isolated, Unravelling

There’s an overused phrase in politics that’s often abused beyond its relative truth—“this is the most critical of all elections.” For Australians, however, the 2025 federal election not only adheres to the idiom but reinforces its gravity with real-world stakes.

Twenty-25 will be a watershed year in Australia’s history, and as it inches closer to the next federal election, the prospect of Peter Dutton occupying The Lodge should concern every Australian who values social cohesion, economic stability, and democratic integrity.

Dutton’s embrace of Trumpian-style politics—marked by division, fearmongering, and a reactionary stance on key national issues—threatens to upend the very fabric of Australian society. His shift toward right-wing populism is no accident.

His political positioning mirrors the tactics of Donald Trump in the US—stoking fear about immigration, demonising minority groups, opposing progressive social policies, and attacking independent institutions. This strategy appeals to a base disillusioned with the major parties but is inherently dangerous for a diverse and modern Australia.

Dutton, like Trump, uses inflammatory language on crime and immigration, particularly in his rhetoric around asylum seekers and Indigenous issues. He exploits racial and cultural tensions for political gain—dismissing progressive policies as “woke” while positioning himself as the champion of “real Australians.” It’s divisive framing designed to alienate rather than unite, echoing the polarisation seen under Trump’s presidency.

Under Dutton’s leadership, the Liberal Party has taken a hard-right turn, doubling down on reactionary policies that reject inclusivity and multiculturalism. His opposition to the Voice to Parliament wasn’t simply about policy disagreement—it was a calculated move to appeal to the most conservative elements of the electorate, fostering racial division instead of reconciliation.

A Dutton-led government would likely escalate culture wars, rolling back progress on equality and embedding discrimination into policy. Australia risks following the US into a political landscape where every social issue is weaponised for partisan gain.

Beyond cultural and social issues, Dutton’s economic vision—or lack thereof—should alarm all Australians. The Coalition’s track record under his leadership has focused on pandering to corporate interests, with little concern for the average worker or struggling families.

His resistance to meaningful climate action is a case in point. As the world transitions to a clean energy economy, Dutton remains firmly committed to fossil fuels, prioritising short-term political gains over long-term economic sustainability. Dutton’s opposition to investment in renewables not only ignores scientific consensus but puts Australia at a disadvantage globally. Countries investing in green technology and innovation are surging ahead, while Dutton’s Australia would remain tethered to outdated industries.

On wages and cost-of-living issues, a Dutton government would be disastrous. The Coalition’s approach to industrial relations has consistently favoured big business over workers, with policies aimed at weakening unions, suppressing wage growth, and entrenching insecure work conditions. Australians struggling with the housing crisis and skyrocketing living costs will find little, if any, relief under a government that prioritises corporate profits over people’s livelihoods.

One of the most troubling aspects of Dutton’s political rise is his disregard for democracy and institutions. As Home Affairs Minister, he oversaw an unprecedented expansion of government surveillance, secrecy, and crackdowns on whistleblowers. A Dutton government Dutton would only accelerate this erosion of civil liberties under the guise of national security.

His combative stance toward the media is equally concerning. Like Trump, Dutton has attacked journalists and media outlets that challenge him, preferring to court the Murdoch press while dismissing legitimate scrutiny as bias. An independent and critical press is vital to democracy, yet Dutton’s approach suggests he would rather silence dissent than engage in genuine debate.

Australia’s global standing would also be at risk under Dutton. His outdated, insular approach to foreign policy threatens to isolate Australia from international partners who are moving toward progressive, cooperative strategies. His hawkish stance on China, for example, lacks the diplomatic nuance needed to manage trade and regional stability. Rather than strengthening Australia’s position, his rhetoric risks economic retaliation and diminished global influence.

Additionally, his approach to immigration—one of the most hardline in recent history—would damage Australia’s reputation as a welcoming, diverse nation. Skilled migrants and international investors are unlikely to see Australia as an attractive destination under a leader who frames immigration as a threat rather than an opportunity.

Australians have a choice: embrace a future built on inclusivity, innovation, and global engagement, or retreat into a divisive, reactionary past. Dutton represents a vision of Australia that’s out of touch with modern realities and hostile to progress.

A Dutton government wouldn’t just be a political shift—it would fundamentally alter Australia’s cultural, social, and economic landscape, leaving scars so deep it could take generations to heal.

If his brand of politics is allowed to succeed, Australia risks becoming an unrecognisable version of itself—one where fear and division overshadow unity and progress.

The coming 2025 election isn’t just about policy—it’s about the kind of country Australians want to live in. If history is any guide, allowing Dutton anywhere near The Lodge would be a decision Australia regrets for decades. I’m not aligned with any political party, but I do recognise what’s in Australia’s best interest—and Dutton isn’t.