Peter Dutton: all Bubble, no Squeak

Hypocrisy is often considered a notable issue in politics. It involves a lack of consistency in truth and the appearance of possessing virtues and moral principles that may not actually be held. It can also be characterized as a form of lying by omission.

During the “The Voice” referendum, Peter Dutton constantly said, “We need more details”. “Hypocrisy at its worst. “If you don’t know, vote no!!” Now that we are confronted with an election, he doesn’t plan to provide anything detailed.

In an interview with David Speers on Insiders (noted for its absence of interruptions by the host), Dutton proposed a massive reduction in public servants. How many would lose their jobs, he couldn’t say until after the election. He offered no details or costs; like his nuclear plan for the country.

As l recall, when Labor came to power, the finance minister Katy Gallagher reviewed the public service and found that increasing the service size was more cost-effective than outsourcing the work to the private sector. To do otherwise was just a ploy to hide the size of the service.

As a former small business owner, I experienced firsthand how the growth of my enterprise necessitated a larger team to meet the expanding demands of my customers. This principle mirrors the dynamics of the public service – the more our population grows, the more resources and personnel we need to serve that community effectively. Suppose immigration contributes to a surge of half a million people in our population. In that case, it stands to reason that our public services must also scale up accordingly, ensuring that every individual receives the attention and support they require.

Yet the fourth estate, the custodians of truth for the people, allow him to get away with his no-detail policy while allowing Dutton’s licence to demand it with Labor policy.

“We are not going to have the public service sitting at over 200,000 on Labor’s projections… If we find wasteful spending, our intent is to cut it and that will result in obviously an overall reduction in government expenditure,” he said on Insiders.

This presupposes that the Treasurer and the finance minister weren’t doing their job in the first instance.

Mr Dutton said that there were billions of dollars to pay off debt by scaling back the bureaucrats, then be used to “pay off debt ploy or you can use to put downward pressure on inflation.” Considering the debt his party left behind, that was a bit rich. When asked for the details of a Tony Abbott-style, wide-ranging audit, he could only say that billions of dollars in savings could come from an audit,  thus reducing inflation.

He remained tight-lipped, refusing to divulge even the slightest detail. “Just trust me,” he urged a disingenuous glint in his eye, alluding to Dutton’s promise that everything would come to light after the election. It’s hard to fathom why anyone would place their faith in a man with a reputation for deceit; the thought seems downright ludicrous. Will victory in this electoral battle hinge on the cunning art of deception? The eerie parallels between Dutton and Trump are strikingly evident. Dutton appears poised to release a steady stream of policies cloaked in ambiguity as the campaign intensifies. Are we to be ensnared, lulled into believing his intricate web of partial truths while he skilfully evades the pressing questions? Hypocrisy at its worst.

He’s all bubble and no squeak: He has thought bubbles but not a squeak out of him when we want to know the details.

It was impossible not to contemplate the striking transformation of David Speers, who approached the interview with a newfound restraint. The once relentless barrage of interruptions had vanished, crafted to drive home a point or ensnare his guests in a tricky question. Instead, he seemed considerate, almost contemplative, leaving viewers to wonder if he was going easy on Dutton or if someone had quietly advised him to tone down his technique. I felt he missed an opportunity to press harder on the “after the election admission implications,” allowing a significant moment to slip by without the intensity it deserved.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers countered the opposition leader’s statement:

“Peter Dutton wants to pretend that the 36,000 public servants that he wants to axe all live in Canberra and all do a very narrow kind of job, but what he’s really talking about is axing service provision in suburbs and communities,”

“People will be waiting longer for the services that they need and deserve, and that’s because he wants to indiscriminately cut jobs, not in Canberra, but right around Australia.”

Chalmers went on to suggest that:

“Mr Dutton should reveal what areas of spending he planned to cut before the election, describing the lack of detail as “extraordinary”.

“Peter Dutton has got some very serious questions to answer this week and the week after. He should start by telling people what these cuts are and what they mean.”

Dutton declared that the Trump alliance was now established by appointing Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the new shadow minister for government efficiency. Her appointment echoes that of Elon Musk to lead a Department of Government Efficiency. It duplicates his appointment in the Dutton shadow ministry as a person is already doing that job.

Since taking on the role, Senator Price has said she’ll review federal funding for Indigenous Welcome to Country ceremonies, but doubt she will take pleasure taking from her own. I repeat, it’s a pity she wasn’t doing it when they were last in office; she would have saved heaps then.

She may even provide some details to go with it.

My thought for the day

The Liberal Party has always been a party of elites and would-bes. The idea that economics and society are intertwined is abhorrent to them. Economics is the domain of the rich and privileged and society belongs to those of class and privilege.

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969