Australia, explained.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton appeared at the Lowy Institute on Thursday (Sahlan Hayes)
The opposition leader is betting that the public will see his style of leadership as necessary for the times.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
AUKUS, Trump and “values-driven leadership”: Unpacking Dutton’s foreign policy addressAUKUS, Trump and “values-driven leadership”: Unpacking Dutton’s foreign policy address
John Howard famously asserted, during his long years in opposition, that “the times will suit me”. Nearly 40 years later Peter Dutton is betting on the same sentiment to deliver him the Australian prime ministership.
Dutton has long held the reputation as a hard man in Australian politics, with warnings about dangers and threats his political stock in trade. Dutton’s speech to the Lowy Institute in Sydney on Thursday was designed to reinforce his security credentials in what he repeatedly underscored to be uncertain times.
Dutton wants the public to believe that with an election imminent, the present global tumult suits a leader of his character – not the “opportunism and weakness” he sees in Anthony Albanese. Dutton cited Howard’s instincts on foreign policy as formative for his own.
This was a notably partisan speech, which belies the often-heard claim that the two sides of politics typically agree on foreign affairs. Dutton criticised Labor’s approach on the Pacific and policy on Israel. So too, Albanese’s “lack of experience” having not held a national security portfolio, although such an attack line might have had more traction had he not also criticised “Airbus Albo” over the past three years for travelling overseas too much as prime minister.
Always with a speech like this, a leader can be criticised for what is left out as much as the words included.
Dutton leant heavily on his own considerable experience in national security, having previously served as Home Affairs and Defence minister. This, he said, gave him the respect to be able to deal with Donald Trump. Labor, he acknowledged, had supported AUKUS, but “their heart isn’t in the game when it comes to defence”.
It was US relations that Dutton said need the most repair. He pledged to make Washington his first visit overseas should he become PM, and interestingly also made a point of saying Joe Biden “wasn’t instinctively in favour of an AUKUS deal”. The implication being that negotiations are essential to keeping AUKUS on track, and that Dutton is better placed to oversee the project.
As always with a speech like this, a leader can be criticised for what is left out as much as the words included. He was cautious about China, willing to criticise the conduct of its military or interference in Australia, but made no mention of rights questions within China itself. India didn’t feature, or climate change. And he offered no commitments either way on aid.
Southeast Asia also received no substantive attention – although Dutton did say in comments afterwards that relations with Indonesia are “sacrosanct”, a choice of word that was itself striking, reflecting the moralistic tone throughout his address. Dutton invoked his belief in “good and evil” and a need for “values-driven leadership”. Yet this values framework sits uneasily with his position on Ukraine. Dutton does not support Albanese’s declaration that Australia would consider sending peacekeeping troops there, emphasising the cost such a commitment would carry a cost to military readiness at home. This stance potentially undermines his own claim about the importance to “stand with other democracies when their security, sovereignty and freedom is imperilled” and to my mind overstates the cost such a signal could carry for Australia, which has a long tradition of contributing to such missions.
The values test Dutton applies to foreign policy also strikes a discordant note with the American exceptionalism envisaged by Trump. Dutton’s response might be to invoke “Australia First” while acknowledging that “our interests do not always align perfectly with the interests of partners – even of our closest allies”. However, he sidesteps the question of how these positions can be reconciled within his framework of even tighter military ties or when faced with tariffs.
This speech was very much about the here and now. Dutton did not outline an ambition for Australia to shape regional relations, other than a pledge to “develop our defence capabilities at speed and scale so we can become a more credible partner to contribute to the objectives of deterrence and peace.” There was no visionary policy proposal, rather a pitch for better management.
The times will soon judge if that’s what the Australian people desire.
About the author
Daniel Flitton
Daniel Flitton is one of Australia’s most experienced foreign affairs journalists and is Managing Editor of the Lowy Institute’s international magazine, The Interpreter.
Topics
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
