Michael has asked us:

I have had an issue bugging me on Dutton’s repeated claims that his ministerial record would assist in achieving a better outcome for the country internationally, particularly with the USA.  I watched part of the last night’s debate and Dutton made mention of having a strong connection with the Obama Administration that further piqued my interest to look at his ministerial history as follows:

Minister for:

• Workforce Participation 2004-2006 (1 year 93 days)
• Sport 2013-2014 (1 year 96 days)
• Health & Aged Care 2013-2014 (1 year 96 days)
• Immigration 2014-2018 (3 years 241 days)
• Home Affairs 20/12/2017-2021 (3 years 100 days)
• Defence 2021-2022 (1 year 54 days)
• Opposition Leader 2022- (3 years 337 days) 

The first thing I note is that aside from Defence and possibly Immigration, the rest of the ministries he held had a heavy domestic focus.

On his claim that he had dealings with the Obama Administration (20/1/2009-20/1/2017), Dutton’s ministries that may have even had any level of foreign relation interactions were:

•  Immigration – I don’t recall that we had significant interactions with the USA on this matter under the LNP Government at the time.
• Home Affairs – with his ministerial responsibilities commencing in the last days of the Obama Administration, I don’t see how he could validate his claim..

I don’t know if this is an issue worth some form of follow up, but I am tired of politicians making claims that can be ascertained as to whether they “meet the pub test”, let alone a cursory glance.

Fact check: True(ish)

Dutton has made the claim that he has “work[ed] with four US administrations, back to the Obama Administration” repeatedly, including here and in the debate last night. 

Dutton worked (in some capacity) with all 3 of the Obama, Trump 1, and Biden admins. He was immigration minister during Obama’s second term, during which Australia negotiated a refugee resettlement deal with the US, Home affairs minister during Trump 1 where he met with US officials several times, and defence minister during AUKUS negotiations with the Biden admin. However, that only adds up to 3, making it a bit unclear what he’s counting as number four.

While Dutton’s career as immigration minister was perhaps most notable for derogatory comments about climate change and pacific island nations (Peter Dutton overheard joking about rising sea levels in Pacific Island nations – ABC News), he and Turnbull did negotiate a refugee deal with the Obama administration in its final months (Australia and US asylum seeker resettlement deal | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site). The arrangement was one that incoming president Trump was notably unhappy with, becoming the subject of a heated phone call between him and Turnbull (Donald Trump and Malcolm Turnbull’s phone call: The full transcript – ABC News)

As Home Affairs minister during the Trump administration he made several visits to the United States (including in 2017 Visit to the United States), including one where he potentially gave Covid to Ivanka Trump (Ivanka Trump is working from home after meeting Peter Dutton | SBS News)

He was notably defence minister during AUKUS negotiations with the Biden administration, bringing him up to 3 (AUKUS is the most significant step of our time, says Defence Minister Peter Dutton)

The first time I can see that he said he’d worked with 4 US administrations was January 13, which was before Trump’s (second) inauguration. Considering he said that the count started with the Obama administration, he either made a little gaffe, is really bad at Maths or knows something we don’t (maybe he’s counting Joe Biden’s body double separately).

Meanwhile, the latest Honest Government Ad is out:

China has held firm in the trade war and the effort is bearing early fruit. A few hours ago, Trump indicated that a deal with China was now in the works, so that both sides would retreat from their egregiously high tariffs and return to some normalcy. He even promised to be ‘very nice’ in the negotiations (read it with your inner Trump voice).

Remember, Beijing has responded to every step of Trump’s escalation with its own proportional retaliation, including measures which could really hurt, such as restricting rare-earth exports. Washington is shown to have a limited tool-kit – mostly raising tariffs on everything that American consumers and even manufacturers need. Masterful gambit.

Beijing has always maintained it’s open to negotiations, and Trump seems to have now steered towards that off-ramp. Crucially, though, Beijing has refused to make pre-emptively compromises. It seems that a ‘strongman’ like Trump does, after all, respect strength.

There is no sign that China would eagerly return to the previous ‘normal’ – it has already moved to boost its trade links with its regional neighbours, all of whom having been in Trump’s firing line as well; it is intensifying diplomacy with Europe, too, whose leaders now also seem more receptive to cooperation with Beijing. Additionally, it has been ramping up domestic economic stimulus so its producers can further move away from relying on export markets. After all, why keep subsidising the lifestyle of the superpower who wants to contain you?

There is much to be learned from their disciplined, wide-ranging, and coordinated approach to statecraft on display here, based on a firm grasp of their own interest and even those of other countries.

Q: Just on national security more broadly, is it still your plan to introduce questions about anti-Semitism into the citizenship test? Would you re-vet the 2,000-odd people who have come from Gaza who you said didn’t have proper security checks and would you move to recognise the capital of Israel as West Jerusalem?

Dutton:

On the first two yes, in relation to the last one, we don’t have any plans to change the current arrangements. What is interesting at the moment is you have got the Prime Minister who is pretending again and if you believe this, you will believe anything, that he had no idea who this anti-Semitic candidate was that he is now preferencing. (To be clear, the Greens candidate has been critical of the genocide Israel is carrying out in Gaza, where at least 50,000 people have been killed, mostly women and children, as a result of Israel’s on-going bombardment of the Gaza strip, where people can not leave. Israel has also stopped all aid and food and water from entering Gaza, with famine and disease the direct result)

Dutton:

The Prime Minister owes an explanation to the public about exactly why they are preferencing anti-Semitic – the Jewish community, anti-Semitic candidates, the Jewish community is alarmed at what Labor is doing. (Many in the Jewish community have echoed similar concerns at Israel’s policies and would be considered anti-Semitic under Dutton’s definition) We won’t compromise on border security. We have been clear about that. Our nation is the greatest in the world. We welcome migrants coming to our country. We have the most successful migration program but we won’t compromise on those settings which provide screening of people who are coming in from a war zone.

Q: The people were vetted when they exited the Rafah border crossing by Israel, they were vetted. Don’t you trust our security agencies or allies?

Dutton:

We will take advice and conduct proper security checks.

Those checks have been done. There is no population on earth who have as much information held about them by security agencies, than Palestinians. In order to leave Gaza (and we are talking about the beginning of Israel’s assault on the civilian population, which began 18 months ago) people had to be able to pass Israel’s checks, as well as Australia’s. Everyone who has arrived in Australia has gone thorugh the proper vetting. The only people claiming checks were not done is the Coalition who has repeatedly tried to raise racist and xenophobic fears, even as security agencies called for calm heads and for leaders to watch what they say.

The Coalition still won’t say where any of the spending is coming from – this matters because they keep saying they will put the budget ‘guardrails’ back up and also restore structural surpluses to the budget. So the spending matters.

Peter Dutton says they are not baking in the spending – the fuel excise and low and middle income tax offset have expiry dates on them.
But that doesn’t make them free. It just means there is an end date to the spending.

So that spending gets taken away from people, but at the same time, other things will still need to be paid for, while the spending is in place. And the other spending promises the Coalition have made at this election – to match Labor policies on health – as well as the housing policies and now defence – will need to be paid for.

So what is not going to be paid for?

This press conference is not going the way that Peter Dutton thought it would.

Andrew Hastie is looking decidedly annoyed. Michaelia Cash keeps looking up as if she is hoping for some divine intervention and Peter Dutton is trying to explain what his position is when it comes to assisting Ukraine in its fight against Russia.

Dutton sides with Ukraine, but doesn’t think Australia should send peace keeping troops.

He has also brought his children who are not Harry – Rebecca and Tom to this press conference, which seems another odd choice – but guess he is hoping the photos of him with his kids will help soften his image while he still talks tough.

Q: You have previously said Australia should not contribute to the Coalition of the Willing because there is a US no security presence or blanket. Australia’s contributed to heaps of peace-keeping missions that haven’t involved a US presence. There is Israel, which is ongoing and Cyprus and Mozambique are two other examples. Why is it a deal breaker when it comes to Ukraine if you are not siding with them together?

Dutton:

I stood with the Ukrainian ambassador and sent off the bush masters. We said we would strongly support and back Ukraine. It is something that all Australians should be proud of. We saved lives with the bush masters and the capability we were building at the time. I am opposed to us sending in, in an ill-defined way to an ill-defined mission our troops on the border with a nuclear powered country like Russia with a lunatic in charge of Russia, not knowing what would happen next.

The Prime Minister hadn’t thought about, it he hadn’t discussed it with the CDF, he hadn’t discussed it with the Minister for Defence.

The next day the Minister for Defence and the Assistant Minister for Defence walked it back.

Q: The question is about showing up. As your own shadows defence minister said, the lesson of Ukraine is about being able to stand on your own two foot until your allies come to help. What kind of ally are we if we don’t come

Dutton:

The reason we’re not supplying at the levels we did when the Coalition was in government is because this government has required defence to pay for what they contribute to Ukraine… We are talking about being a friend and being there for Ukraine, our contribution. I take it seriously, we are a great friend of Ukraine. I am not putting the lives of Australian soldiers at risk without understanding anything of what is being asked and the Prime Minister has nothing before him which indicates what it is that is being asked of our troops.

Q: While that is being negotiated, is nothing on the table?

Dutton:

We are told that we live in the most dangerous period since 1945 by the Prime Minister. He is talking about sending hundreds of thousands of troops into Europe when we should be working with our allies in the Pacific and we should be working on building up our capabilities.

We have a record low investment in defence under Labor and we are talking about diverting what would be billions of dollars from the defence budget into sustaining our effort in Europe.

That is not the approach of a prudent Prime Minister who understands national security.

Q: If you get some of those questions answered, would you – from Keir Starmer, would you be willing to change your mind…

Dutton:

I have dealt with that.

Q: Respectfully, I don’t think you have. Would you be willing to change your mind?

Dutton:

I have stated our position.

Andrew Hastie is now being asked the question he refused to answer a couple of weeks ago – should women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the ADF.

In 2018 he said:

My personal view, since you’ve asked me, is that close combat roles are incredibly exacting. “That’s why we have rigorous selection courses. And my personal view is that the fighting DNA of a close combat unit is best preserved when it’s exclusively male. Now, that’s not a popular view.”

Today he says:

Yes. The Coalition policy is that all combat roles are open to women. It’s been our long-standing position. I’ve been in this role for almost five years, 18 months as the Assistant Minister for Defence, three years now as the Shadow Minister for Defence and our Coalition policy is that all combat roles are open to women.

There is no points for second place that we need to win every fight we go into, that is why we will uphold that.

Q: Are you saying women have lower standards? Is that what you are saying?

Hastie:

It is hardly what I am saying. We have one standard. All Australians, regardless of your background, race, sexuality, gender, religion, every single role in the ADF is open to you, and we want more Australians to join.

I signaled this last week to the Secretary of Defence and the chief of the Defence Force, so I made it very clear about our policy going forward.

This is the thing about Richard Marles. He talks a big game. Talks about the most dangerous strategic circumstances since the end of the Second World War and he uses women in the ADF as a political prop, as a political prop, and I think it is a shame for scare campaign that is running and I stand by my record. Like I said yesterday on ABC Radio, I worked in the ADF for 12 years, eight months and I worked with women all the time. It is the first close quarter battle integrated course with females at the end of 2011, counter-terrorism drills at Swanbourne. I was taught surveillance and counter surveillance by women, very good at what they do. I was an instructor on the first integrated SAS selection course where we had females come through. To take a lecture from Richard Marles is below the belt, really is what I am saying.

Q: Has he changed his view from seven years ago – that women weaken the fighting DNA of a combat unit?

Hastie is now trying to say that he doesn’t think women are up to the physicality of what he did in the SAS, without saying that:

I did say it. In my personal experience, when I think about some of the things I had to do in a closed combat unit… not far from here, live fire drills where you practice a man down, very aerobically intensive. You are firing live rounds. I remember picking up an 85kg man and I did that with men under fire in combat for a fallen mate.

I am not going to resile from what I have said in the past. You want honesty and integrity from politicians, I said what I said but the thing that the Australian people need to know, under a Dutton-led Coalition government, we will have a policy that is open to all Australians for combat roles. Nothing is changing. This is Richard Marles playing politics with the ADF, with women in the ADF and using them as political props and it is shameful.

Q: It sounds like from that answer you still think women aren’t strong enough – is that right, women aren’t strong enough to deal with that combat you have described, is that what you are saying?

Hastie:

I didn’t say that at all. I got asked a question and I referred to my personal experience. Never once have I indicated that the policy should change and, as I have said, judge me by my record for the last five years.

Q: Do you not believe in your own policy if that is your personal belief and the Coalition policy is something different?

Hastie then declares the questioning over:

No, I am standing here saying there is one policy. This is student politics stuff. I am ready to be the Minister for Defence of this country. We have the most dangerous circumstances since the end of the Second World War. Peter takes that seriously, I take it seriously and Linda and Michaelia take it seriously. We are focusing on bringing lethal capabilities to deter our enemies and you are getting caught up on a comment from 7 years ago which doesn’t have any bearing on the current policy settings. I have dealt with it, I have answered the question. We are going to move on.

Peter Dutton still can’t say how he would pay for anything, other than saying that the spending is not “baked in” – so it is not ongoing.

But that doesn’t make it free. It just means that it is not an ongoing spend. And given that the Coalition keeps harping on about returning the budget to a structural surplus – that means it is either going to tax more (and that could be multinational corporations) or it is going to cut services and funding.

The Coalition has said it will not be taxing more. So that leaves cuts. Which is another way of saying ‘austerity’.

If you cut government services and funding, you are putting the burden on the lower and middle classes to pay more for things the government used to pay for, or miss out.

It is one of the worst things you can do (at anytime) but particularly when economic conditions appear uncertain and people start to hold on to their money because of that uncertainty. It can send economies into recession.

This press conference just has me yelling at the TV, so I will save you from the bullshit.

Just remember that the “ripped $80bn” out of defence argument that the Coalition uses is EXACTLY THE SAME as the one Labor uses to say the Coalition “ripped” money out of health and education funding in 2014. Funding increased, but the rate at which it had been forecast to increase by the previous government was cut.

The Coalition has had a massive cry over Labor “lying” about health and education funding cuts, with Dutton admitting last night that it would be a cut in forecast funding growth. That is what the $80bn figure it uses here is. It was diverted from the forecast growth.

PLUS THE LABOR GOVERNMENT SIGNED THE AUKUS AGREEMENT WHICH IS HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR DEFENCE.

Peter Dutton is holding his press conference – he is in WA and has Andrew Hastie, his shadow defence minister with him.

Hastie is standing in front of Liberal branding which is quite rare for Hastie this campaign – he has been standing in front of his own branding which just has his name and his seat. It’s not even Liberal blue – he has chosen a darker blue for his events and signage.

He doesn’t look comfortable as he listens to Dutton talk about how happy he is to stand up with him. Hastie hasn’t been backing in Dutton when needed in this campaign – he refused to back away from his previous comments that he didn’t believe women should be in combat units – and has been notably quiet for someone with such a high profile Coalition portfolio.

According to Liberal sources, Hastie has been supporting Angus Taylor in his bid to take over the leadership in the event that Dutton falls short of the 65-68 seats the party has set as an internal target for Dutton to continue as leader in the event he loses the election. There are those who believe he would be deputy to Dutton and then take over the leadership before the next election.

Anyways, this is an uncomfortable press conference and for once, it is not just because Michaelia Cash is there.