Peter Dutton has been a busy man since being appointed defence minister two weeks ago. He wants to end the “wokening” of our armed forces. He’s leading a crusade against waterdrop Twitter. He’s still finding an opportunity to make the Biloela family’s life hell, despite being moved on from the home affairs portfolio. And he’s facing scrutiny from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO).
Dutton’s appointment to defence was widely celebrated by News Corp types, who felt he was the kind of no–bullshit guy needed to rebuild the strength of a portfolio that has had nine ministers in the last 14 years. And his early weeks are likely to have impressed them. Dutton is leaning into the kind of hard-nosed culture-warring that has always made him such a darling of the right.
A war on woke
Last week, Dutton announced that his first priority as defence minister was to repair a morale slump across the Australian Defence Force, and remind troops the government “has their back”. The subtext to this is pretty clear.
Last November, the Brereton report detailed a string of alleged war crimes and a toxic warrior culture among the country’s most elite soldiers serving in Afghanistan. But for some in the military community, that report was read as a sign of betrayal by a government and military top brass prepared to throw soldiers to the wolves.
Dutton maintained that the process of implementing the report’s recommendations is afoot, but the message sent was clear: the new minister didn’t want those pesky allegations deterring diggers from doing their job.
“The commitment that the government has got to the Australian Defence Force — not only financially but morally — is very important,” he said.
This week, Assistant Defence Minister Andrew Hastie reminded troops that their main job, at the end of the day, was to kill people — a directive reportedly consistent with Dutton’s initial instructions to the top brass.
Dutton’s appointment was celebrated as marking the end of a period when, according to some Liberals, the army had gotten too woke — apparently by banning death symbols and bringing in dancers to twerk at a warship.
Defamation Dutton
Despite all that important reform, Dutton has decided now is the time to fight back against people being rude to him on Twitter. The minister has vowed to send defamation threats to people on social media referring to him as a “rape apologist”. Regular users with little income or influence have already received letters.
Of course, as Crikey pointed out last week, the minister has been perfectly happy to dish out vitriol of his own over the years.
Biloela family
When Dutton was moved on from home affairs, there was some hope among refugee advocates that the government might soften its position towards the Tamil asylum seeker family from Biloela who have been in detention for more than 1000 days.
Yesterday, Labor Senator Kristina Keneally received permission from Australian Border Force to visit the family on Christmas Island, where they’ve been held since 2019. Then, just 22 minutes later, Keneally received an email saying the defence minister had determined the special purpose aircraft meant to take her to Christmas Island was no longer available.
Dutton, who has not commented on the matter, appears to have intervened. As home affairs minister, Dutton displayed little sympathy for a family he could bring home with the stroke of a pen. He’s called the young children “anchor babies”, and accused the family of “using every trick in the book” (i.e. our court system) to stay in Australia.
The auditor-general strikes back
Dutton left the home affairs department with a whiff of scandal. In February, the ABC reported Dutton had turned a community safety grants scheme into a bit of a slush fund, intervening to overrule a list of recommendations from his own department and funnel money into marginal seats.
Now, the ANAO has commenced an audit into that funding. A report is expected to be tabled in February next year, likely just in time for the next election.
Save this EOFY while you make a difference
Australia has spoken. We want more from the people in power and deserve a media that keeps them on their toes. And thank you, because it’s been made abundantly clear that at Crikey we’re on the right track.
We’ve pushed our journalism as far as we could go. And that’s only been possible with reader support. Thank you. And if you haven’t yet subscribed, this is your time to join tens of thousands of Crikey members to take the plunge.
Editor-in-chief
Leave a comment
So not supplying an aircraft to a politician to fly to visit 1 family who have been deemed by a series of Australian Courts is now misuse of power by the the Minister or is it the politician’s misuse of perks?
It should be applauded that the Minister has not wasted taxpayer funds – for no discernible benefit to anyone but the politician who has been identified as Senator Kristina Keneally NSW Senator – the family to have been visited were Queensland residents should have come under the interests of a Queensland Senator. The Senate is a chamber representing the States.
deemed by a series of Australian Courts as illegal immigrants.
Australia was never ceded.You are on ABORIGINAL land.
if some want to celebrate Invasion Day instead of Australia day as we see on TV – then it is a conquered land – to the victor go the spoils -luckily the conquerors are very benign.
Nothing is Aboriginal land – only what the Commonwealth Parliament passed under Commonwealth Law deems to come under Native Title
Under UK common law , the invasions was illegal!
Your Source mate? Survey the archives of the The Times for the period. The First fleet was directed by Parliament and the Admiralty.
Can’t imagine what motivated your post. It wasn’t history.
You are on Aboriginal land. All the words in the world cannot erase that fact.
Your presence here is but a few seconds in the history of this continent. You are but a two second intruder.
Australia was ceded to George III (and successors) on 27? August 1770 celebrated with sherry for officers and rum for crew. The (his) Log book also records a salute of small arms.
Dancing around camp fires is great fun but we have Courts for the sake of of certainly.
Your ignorance is astounding. A man erecting a flag from a foreign nation on the soil of this continent is not ceding a continent. You are more deluded than I thought.
Enjoy your short stay. The rate you are trashing this country, you wont survive much longer.
We live with the regulations of the day Penny. The action by Cook justified every decision by the House of Commons subsequently. Anyone who disagrees on that point, by definition, is deluded.
If you wish to alter the rules, either by an Act of Parliament or by a decision of the High Court may I wish you good luck.
My irritation concerning a number of issues exist because I am an Australian citizen and, to refer to one issue, the woky nonsense is taking the country nowhere; indeed counter-productive compared to our competitors.
I’m happy to recommend a few authorative texts from Cook’s claim to Federation. It is there for the reading. To deny the history is to trash the country.
Unbelievable. The actions of the day are NOT ONE WAY STREET. An invasion by a foreign power IS AN INVASION. In your tiny little brain, the UK was the only country with laws. It was not.
Try and understand just how much of an Anglophile you really are when you believe that British law in the 1700s outranked all other laws of all other nations. Its kind of unbalanced.
OK : get personal if you must (to insulate yourself) but the FACTS, Penny, remain as they are and exist for anyone to inspect.
The British were entirely justified in their pursuits consistent with their laws. Ditto for any other sovereignty or Republic. In the case of terra nullius there can be no “invasion” because, while (sparsely) inhabited no legal ownership is/was recognised.
As an aside, given the emigration (often forced via ‘the Enclosures’) just how long would have Rousseau’s state of nature continued anywhere?
Colonialism was the economic practice that the century had to have and colonies did best (GNP or whatever) under the Brits (again, as a matter of fact and often overlooked).
The laws of the day are very much a “one way street”, Penny, for the purpose of clarity extending to (the enforcing of) contracts and property rights.
Hopefully, I have settled your doubts on the matter.
Oh boy. The British were NOT entirely justified. This is where your cart goes off the road. To assume that ONLY the British had laws & that their laws overrode all laws of other nations is the belief underpinning white supremacy. YOU NEED TO GET A GRIP.
If, as it seems, you are intent on repudiating the history and the ethos of the day I am going to have to withdraw.
Frankly, I can’t imagine what you are asserting. Your “all other nations” comprised, in the main, the literate world (and ONLY the literate world and colonies through representation.
While all locations possessed cultures few locations comprised civilizations; permanent record keeping in a written language if you prefer and ONLY such states possessed recognised laws between legitimate diplomatic entities.
Should you disagree then you can only be living in your own world.
White supremacy in a nut shell. Your belief that only those with writing are truely civilised is laughable.
Your inability to comprehend a world beyond your little world & your antiquated reading of history is why we are where we are today. By all means retreat, since you are incapable of comprehending other truths than those of your own creation.
For the sake of illustration, your reply is a classic example of post truth (which you might research).
You seem unable to recognise the history and (thus) play the white card in its place. The evidence for the existence of “other truths” has to be presented and verified otherwise such claims are synonymous with religious claims or doctrine.
There is nothing that is “antiquated”; indeed what I have presented could not be more orthodox.
What a lot of nonsense you write.
Your views are antiquated. I feel for you. It must be hard being stuck in the past while imagining you are the vanguard.
No Penny and unlike yourself, I have no axes to grind. You might look up the word “empiricist” as a description of me.
It is you who makes the non-historical claims. Reflect and refer to any item of fact that I have offered and attempt to make a verifiable contra claim or case (but history is not on your side).
Who knew that writing was white?
Certainly not those who ruled the Middle Kingdom when britons were clad in woad.
Those who speared Cook were entirely within their rights, though it is unlikely that they made Sandwiches of him.
At the risk of future Englishmen being speared the Islands incurred a name change.
Cook was speared because the islanders considered him a god. Such entities create weather and do not need to take precautions against weather. By killing Cook the situation was salvaged
Perhaps Cook ought have heeded his feminine side.
Cook was killed because he was a drain on resources and a bloody nuisance. The first thing he did in Australia, as he stepped ashore, was to shoot dead the first man that approached him. To believe a history written solely by the powerful winners is gullible and compounds the original crimes against humanity perpetrated by those winners. Reality is what actually happened at the time. Recognise that and we can all move on. I’m ready for a treaty. Uluru statement. I’m very proud of Aboriginal Australia. White Australia, not so much. Post treaty, yes.
The Admiralty sent Jimco off in a defunct clapped-out ship and so helped him become a protein source in Hula Land. Braised Cook and onions, for the foodies. RIP
I would be interested in your source for your first claim because it is well recorded that Cook either imprisoned crew for a week on scant rations for offences towards natives or had crew members flogged for rape and other vicious assault on natives.
You claim also conflicts with Cook’s views, as expressed to his wife, through letters concerning natives. For Cook, they were god’s creatures. If you get stuck let me know.
You will giggle tomorrow as to what has just been embargoed. The filters are overturned for woke.
No I shall not giggle – just seethe.
Like German humour, this MadBot idiocy is no laughing matter.
The above was a rephrasing of my earlier, blocked post.
IF the original appears, compare them and try to figure out what was the trigger.
The islanders who killed Cook were entirely within their rights, though it is unlikely that they made a sandwich of him.
My reply to you comment, which was by no means inflammatory, has disappeared!
Brierly, Cook allowed himself to be considered as a god. Perhaps the islands were renamed lest the inhabitants became creative.
My original comment has also been disappeared down the memory hole – standard in this parish (hi SueC!) for contrary views.
I really do not wish to continue funding such a shallow intellectual swamp.
The articles are usually trite – when not risible – and the relentless one sided wokery makes my teeth ache.
I’m here only for the discussions with about 15 subscribers. As for the articles it’s a bit like marking average Yr11 & 12 assignments; at least in the main. My sub expires at the end of June.
Mine expires this week.
For the sake of accuracy, my comment has reappeared!
Mine too.
It’s almost as if there were a sentient, soft machine in the bunker able to read who was embarrassed by this nonsense.
Unlikely – sentience or embarrassment – but, hope we must.
This is becoming ridiculous.
AWAITENINGED yet again.
Ceded, by whom?
You are being obtuse DB.
I have explained that the word has no meaning because it was recognised that there was nothing to “cede” and hence the claim by Cook for the Crown.
It was you who used the wildly inappropriate word – “Australia was ceded to George III…” in an otherwise accurate, if otiose, opinion.
Written law including property deeds didn’t protect the sub continent from rapine and take over.
CEDED?
By whom?
You’d be better sticking with “to the victor, the spoils“.
The verb “cede” means to give up (power or territory) –
Acquired, claimed, taken, annexed, stole etc.
But never ceded.
It was a bit brash but I did wish to utilise the verb that was used originally.
That is : used in a post that deserved a reply
Hi Penny -I think you may mean Indigenous lands were never ceded to Australia.
Misuse of taxpayer funds! Give me a break. Look at how the liberal/ national party politicians have used our money on flights. Tell me flying to Murdoch’s Christmas party was justified.
Don’t be too hasty – maybe Matthias needs to borrow that plane for some unfinished lobbying?
… Scotty, Robert and Irons might be flying from Sydney, Brisbane and Perth for another Irons wedding?
…. Abbott and “Ma” Bishop might be flying to a birthday party in Melbourne and need it?
…. another Irons wedding in Melbourne?
Sorry, I didn’t see your post.
Conman flying around Europe on tax payers money while he is a private citizen too….
Then there’s those other Coalition “worthy causes”?
Like that $37,000 bill for flying Matthias around the country for A/one/singular/fleeting/non-urgent meeting with cross bench senator Griff on June 22 2018?
Friday – after a hard morning hawking the government’s $144,000,000 income tax package around various media dives – flying “Biggles” Cormann from Canberra to Adelaide then, on to Perth. After dropping him off, the plane turning around to fly back to Canberra, “empty”.
For a grand total of a day and a half “at home” in Perth for Biggles – whence he caught a commercial flight back to Canberra on Sunday?
Griff couldn’t see neither Corman’s urgency nor the need for him to spend that amount of our $tax – he said he could have had that meeting anytime; even that week after – back in Canberra? .
Perhaps the RAAF plane used by the Kormannator in his recent job hunt was worn out?
You raise a pertinent point. Would it be better use of a commonwealth aircraft to fly a former cabinet minister (hello, Mathias Cormann) hither & thither around the globe to post-parliamentary job interviews?
Yes that was terrible – perhaps he is is now trying to make amends – I think not just plain politics
or “playing politics” even?
Desmond, you clapping about this part of the article too?
“In February, the ABC reported Dutton had turned a community safety grants scheme into a bit of a slush fund, intervening to overrule a list of recommendations from his own department and funnel money into marginal seats.”
learnt from Gladys
Oh boy. San LNP fanboy worried about perks & misuse of power. Sad little LNP muppet. Your parties days of cruelty are numbered.
I’m sure they were able to rustle up a plane for the PM to visit Kalbarri, for a photo op.
Even if it was a commercial flight, I’m not sure how, it would have cost a motza, for a photo op.
To many people, Peter Dutton represents the worst aspect of the current regime: cold hearted, ruthless, free of compassion or decency. Others see him as tough and uncompromising in protecting Australia’s integrity and independence. His thin skinned sensitivity to negative comments does seem rather twee and undermines his tough guy persona.
Many people forget about young Dutton’s rather checkered past in Queensland. The attitudes were formed by exposure to his job (Qld copper) and the LNP and its antecedents…
Tell us more!
Dutton is a Sick horrible natured A hole – Sue me.
Only if you have lots of money – haven’t you heard lawyers only go after those with deep pockets
Nailed it/him
On all the other articles of which there was only a whiff of defamation mentioned by a lnp politician no comments were possible…..