Enough of the hysteria: Dutton isn’t a racist, he simply asked a question Australians deserve to know the answer to, writes PETER VAN ONSELEN

So Teal Independent MP Zali Steggall is standing by labelling Opposition Leader Peter Dutton a racist last week in the coward’s castle that is Parliament House. 

Dutton moved a motion in parliament calling on Labor to explain the vetting process for Palestinian refugees fleeing war-torn Gaza who come to Australia. 

I thought providing explanations for policy decision making was a core component of democratic politics? Not in the eyes of everyone evidently. 

According to Steggall ‘this policy proposal is inherently racist, and it’s designed to foster fear and hatred of a minority group’. 

While Dutton might welcome being accused of developing an alternative policy on this issue, he’s really just seeking answers to questions about the government’s existing policy. 

Yet Steggall sees fit to label such questioning racist. 

Her stubbornness – not to mention a label that doesn’t fit the questions Dutton asked – belies the complexity of Australia taking refugees from Hamas controlled Gaza. Which is just another reason why asking questions is a good thing. 

Steggall has rightly identified that Dutton sees a political opportunity in querying the national security arrangements – or lack thereof – attached to the humanitarian gesture. 

The Opposition Leader Peter Dutton (pictured) rejects accusations that he is a racist when questioning the security arrangements for refugees from Gaza

Call him opportunistic, by all means, but not racist. The latter is an insult that says more about Steggall’s lack of nuance. Refusing to acknowledge that the heat of the moment got the better of her – as she stands by the insult – to thus walk back her rhetoric is disappointing. 

Why does Steggall think it’s OK to label the Opposition Leader a racist for raising concerns about security issues in the Middle East? Because she’s concerned about social cohesion, apparently. 

Somehow using the ‘racist’ label loosely and freely against a major party political leader expressing legitimate concerns shared by many Australians, no doubt, helps preserve social cohesion? 

I would have thought the opposite is true. 

Next, she’ll join the conga line of the self-righteous who think Australia ‘is a racist country’ because of the bad behaviour of a few. 

As part of Steggall’s concerns she’s also now labelled Dutton a bully. Why? Because the Opposition Leader had the temerity to take umbrage at being called a racist, looking into his legal rights. 

This is the world we live in when the self-righteous get 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 who get insulted stand up for themselves, they are bullies. 

Anthony Albanese (pictured) is trying to walk both sides of the street on the issue of Gaza

The Opposition wants better vetting of refugees from Gaza but the government won’t answer questions

Dutton is concerned about potential security risks attached to taking thousands of refugees from a part of the world that has been marred in 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 entry for refugees coming here from Gaza. 

Seriously? 

That throwaway line during a media interview should be cause for concern by everyone. 

Whether Dutton is right or wrong to pursue this issue, it only becomes a political hot potato when there is a divide between the major parties on how to deal with the challenges identified. 

Which seems to be the case the deeper the Opposition digs. Not that the Albanese Government is answering questions put to it on this issue. 

Keep in mind it is the Opposition’s job to question government policy. Whether those policy scripts are dictated by unelected bureaucrats or elected MPs makes no difference. 

It isn’t the job of the Opposition to wave the white flag and agree with whatever is already happening. Not when they have concerns. Again, this is a basic cornerstone of democratic politicking. 

Whatever Steggall’s lack of nuance when assessing Dutton’s concerns, at least she has the courage of her (ill-placed) convictions. 

The PM, on the other hand, has said privately that he agrees with Steggall’s insults, but is publicly trying to walk both sides of the fence. 

Having learned from hurling insults of bigotry at opponents of the Voice, before 60 per cent of Australians voted against it, Albo is now trying to delicately balance his competing constituencies on the issue of Gaza. 

Put simply, the PM is no less focused on the politics of this issue than the Opposition Leader. In fact, I would suggest the politics of Gaza are much higher on Albo’s mind than Dutton’s, as the PM evaluates what to do next.