Labor has found itself once again dancing to the tune of Peter Dutton’s drumbeat on national security issues. And the wider Coalition is cheering on the show.
First, Labor executed an abrupt U-turn on not only its own legislation to further criminalise hate crimes, but also its own longstanding party policy against mandatory minimum sentencing.
Then shadow home affairs minister James Paterson issued transcripts from his morning interviews, claiming victory as he listed one of the topics of his discussions as “Labor capitulates to the Coalition’s demands on tougher laws”.
“The government has been dragged kicking and screaming to doing the right thing to protect Australians. But once again, it is Peter Dutton and the Coalition who has led and it’s Anthony Albanese and the Labor party who has followed,” he told Sky News.
“Why would you choose a pale imitation of Peter Dutton when you could have the real thing?”
Albanese and Labor would strongly rebuke such a characterisation, their three years in government and upcoming election campaign built on creating a contrast between their social democratic leanings and Dutton’s in-built hardman approach.
But while Labor’s campaign will seek to draw stark differences to Dutton and the Coalition – focusing on investments in health, education and public services, and Dutton’s efforts to cut those areas – Wednesday’s night-time surprise surrender to Dutton’s demands for mandatory minimums is the latest in a growing body of evidence that Labor is happy to follow Dutton’s lead on crime and security.
The reason for the U-turn, even though no Labor MP would say it publicly, isn’t hard to pinpoint: the government knows it won’t win a national security flex-off with Dutton, not when Albanese is still under pressure over the government’s broader antisemitism response, including the confected outrage over which day the prime minister was told about the Dural caravan packed with explosives.
The government wants to cauterise the issue, match Dutton, and take the fight off the table so they can focus on fighting the election on the battleground they want – not try to beat Dutton at his own game.
But it means once again, Labor has found itself trailing up the scorched earth path blazed by Dutton on issues of national security and law and order; once again, finding itself snookered by the bulldozer approach of the opposition leader; once again ending up at essentially the same position the Coalition had called for weeks prior, with the only difference being an agonising period of hand-wringing and protestations that they could not, would not, will not do what Dutton asked for, and that it was foolish to even ask the question.
And then doing it anyway.
Let’s pull it apart. The Coalition had promised mandatory minimum sentences for hate crimes as part of their antisemitism pledge in January. Labor’s own national platform opposes mandatory sentencing, stating the “practice does not reduce crime but does undermine the independence of the judiciary, lead to unjust outcomes and is often discriminatory in practice.”
The government’s hate speech bill, introduced last September, would have further outlawed speech directly inciting violence and threats. But late on Wednesday, in the federation chamber – a smaller chamber of the parliament – the home affairs minister, Tony Burke, moved amendments to jam in new provisions for mandatory minimum jail terms for terror offences and displaying hate symbols.
Burke noted government “for a long time has expressed concern about the efficacy of mandatory sentencing” – but that the unexpected switch was in hopes of seeing the bill passed “with the largest majority possible to be able to send the strongest message possible”.
It was an explicit admission that it was about agreeing to the Coalition’s position. The Greens leader, Adam Bandt, protested that the original bill already had enough support to pass, via the crossbench.
My colleague Dan Jervis-Bardy reported Labor stalwart Kim Carr’s criticism of the “clear breach” of an ALP article of faith. Carr is no friend of the prime minister – a factional enemy of Albanese – but the same cannot be said of current Labor MPs, who have privately voiced their discomfort.
Asked to explain the change, Albanese told morning TV interviews that “I want people to be held to account”, but wouldn’t be drawn on the break with Labor’s longstanding policy.
“Putting this in place and then having a review of how the laws are operating by the joint parliamentary committee on intelligence is an appropriate thing to do,” he said.
The employment minister, Murray Watt – reliably one of the government’s more effective communicators – conceded the backflip on Labor policy, saying the times demanded it.
Asked if the Labor platform was “worth the paper it’s written on”, Watt said “our platform is our guiding document on all issues”.
“But equally, as a government, we need to take quick action and firm action when we face something like the antisemitism scourge that we’re facing right now,” he told a press conference.
The Law Council of Australia said it was “extremely disappointed” in the government’s cave-in, its president Juliana Warner saying it was “vitally important in challenging times to uphold rule of law principles and not adopt measures that risk serious injustice.”
She too noted bluntly: “To our knowledge, no security or law enforcement agency has asked for these extraordinary measures.”
Fatima Payman, the former Labor senator who quit the party over its position on the Israel-Gaza war, tweeted that its backing of mandatory minimum sentencing was “in direct contravention of the Labor platform”.
Labor has protested they don’t necessarily like the mandatory sentencing, that it was about compromise and sending a message.
But in these situations, it is the outcome which counts.
One may wonder, then, whether it makes any difference – if you come to it proudly, willingly, hailed through a loudspeaker as the Coalition does; or whether you come to it through gritted teeth as Labor did, quietly at 8pm on a Wednesday in the federation chamber.