Independent MP Zali Steggall is standing firm in calling opposition leader Peter Dutton a racist last week in the castle of cowards that is Parliament.
Dutton tabled a motion in Parliament calling on Labor to explain the vetting process for Palestinian refugees fleeing war-torn Gaza and arriving in Australia.
Did you think that giving explanations about political decision-making was a central component of democratic politics? Obviously not in the eyes of everyone.
According to Steggall, “This policy proposal is inherently racist and designed to foster fear and hatred toward a minority group.”
While Dutton might be happy to be accused of developing an alternative policy on this issue, he is really just seeking answers to questions about the government’s current policy.
However, Steggall considers it appropriate to label such questions as racist.
His obstinacy (not to mention a label that doesn’t fit the questions Dutton asked) belies the complexity of Australia accepting refugees from Hamas-controlled Gaza. Which is another reason why asking questions is a good thing.
Steggall has correctly identified that Dutton sees a political opportunity in questioning the national security arrangements – or lack thereof – associated with the humanitarian gesture.
Teal Party MP Zali Steggall (pictured) has accused Peter Dutton of racism, claiming he is putting social cohesion at risk by raising security concerns about Gaza refugees.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton (pictured) rejects accusations he is racist as he questions security measures for Gaza refugees
Call him an opportunist, of course, but not a racist. The latter is an insult that speaks more to Steggall’s lack of nuance. Her refusal to acknowledge that the heat of the moment got the better of her — while maintaining the insult — and thus retract her rhetoric is disappointing.
Why does Steggall think it’s okay to label the opposition leader a racist for raising concerns about security issues in the Middle East? Because she is apparently concerned about social cohesion.
In some ways, using the label “racist” loosely and vaguely against the leader of a major political party who expresses legitimate concerns shared by many Australians surely helps preserve social cohesion?
I would have thought it was the other way around.
He will then join the conga line of moralists who think Australia is “a racist country” because of the bad behaviour of a few.
As part of Steggall’s concerns, he has now also branded Dutton a bully. Why? Because the opposition leader had the temerity to take offence at being called a racist and took up his legal rights.
This is the world we live in when moralists are challenged. When they hurl insults, they are speaking “truth to power” and for some reason deserve immunity from the law as well as common decency. When those being insulted fight back, they are abusers.
Anthony Albanese (pictured) is trying to walk both sides of the street on the Gaza issue.
Opposition wants better screening of Gaza refugees, but government fails to respond to questions
Dutton is concerned about the potential security risks of hosting thousands of refugees from a part of the world that has been plagued by conflict for generations. What a radical racist he must be! How dare he!
The head of ASIO, no less, has indicated that verbal support for Hamas might not be a barrier to the entry of refugees arriving here from Gaza.
Oh really?
That throwaway line during a media interview should be a cause for concern for everyone.
Whether or not Dutton is right in addressing this issue, it only becomes a hot political topic when there is a divide between the major parties on how to address the challenges identified.
This seems to be the case the more the opposition delves into the matter. Not that the Albanese Government is answering the questions put to it on this issue.
Bear in mind that the opposition’s job is to question government policies. It does not matter whether those policies are dictated by unelected bureaucrats or elected deputies.
It is not the job of the opposition to wave the white flag and agree with what is already happening, not when they have concerns. Again, this is a basic cornerstone of democratic politics.
Despite Steggall’s lack of nuance in assessing Dutton’s concerns, he at least has the courage of his (misguided) convictions.
The Prime Minister, on the other hand, has privately said he agrees with Steggall’s insults, but publicly he is trying to walk both sides of the fence.
Having learned to hurl bigoted insults at opponents on The Voice before 60 per cent of Australians voted against it, Albo is now trying to delicately balance his competing constituencies on the Gaza issue.
In short, the Prime Minister is no less concerned about the politics of this issue than the leader of the opposition. Indeed, I would argue that Gaza politics are much more on Albo’s mind than Dutton’s as the Prime Minister weighs up what to do next.
