Peter Dutton’s Guide on How to Disagree Nicely: Racist fearmonger gives us tips on disagreeing better!

“I want to make sure that we have disagreements and we can have disagreements. That’s fine. But we need to do it better than we have at the moment.”

So said Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, who knows a thing or two about making sure we all have disagreements, after his electorate office was vandalised and anti-nuclear protesters disrupted a planned campaign event yesterday.

Dutton’s right, of course: we need more civility in the way we discuss public policy, more respect for those with different viewpoints, and less febrile debate and angry disruption. Fortunately, Dutton himself has provided a playbook on how to disagree better. We can all take some tips from Peter Dutton’s Guide on How to Disagree Nicely.

Don’t like what’s being discussed? Just walk out!

As Dutton showed when he boycotted the apology to the Stolen Generations, if you’ve got nothing positive to say, not only should you just not say anything, you should also theatrically get up and leave to indicate your displeasure. Nothing says civil discourse like a turned back!

And that sort of behaviour isn’t just for Parliament. You can do it at press conferences as well! Sick of being asked questions by the “hate media” on the campaign trail? Just run away, leaving those “mad fucking witches” yapping in your wake. What better way to respect the role of the fourth estate in civic discourse?

Accuse opponents of being in league with enemies

Object to the views of a political opponent? Why not suggest they’re in league with our enemies! Deem them the favoured candidate of the Chinese government — and vaguely suggest you have “open source and other intelligence” to back that up. Does it matter that only a few years earlier, you were in a cabinet that agreed to a trade deal with China and wanted an extradition treaty with the regime? Of course not. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, as any respectful debater knows.

Don’t just back the freedom to offend, endorse the offence

Everyone knows it’s easy to defend the right to free speech of people you agree with. The real test is defending the free speech of people you disagree with — a key element in disagreeing respectfully. Fortunately, Dutton has shown how this is done: he doesn’t just defend the right of people to make disgusting comments about Indigenous people, he says “I don’t have any issue with what they said.”

Of course, this enthusiasm for free speech might be at odds with trying to silence a Jewish MP from talking about antisemitism. But what would a Jew know about antisemitism? Certainly not as much as Dutton. The member should definitely no longer be heard.

Describe people as ignorant parasites

Dutton has a consistent record of elevating the debate on asylum seekers over the years. What better way to contribute to informed debate than to describe them as people who “won’t be numerate or literate in their own language, let alone English … These people would be taking Australian jobs, there’s no question about that”. Of course, you don’t want anyone thinking they might be productive members of society, so make sure you add “for many of them that would be unemployed, they would languish in unemployment queues”.

Bonus civility and respect points if you contradict all that by declaring they’re “Armani refugees”.

Smear whole ethnicities

Stereotypes and clichés are anathema to sensible debate. But they sure save time! A quick debate is a good one, so just cut to the chase and describe whole ethnicities, like Lebanese-Australians, as terrorists. And you have to hand it to Dutton, he’s generously willing to blame his own side, having a go at Malcolm Fraser — by that stage safely unable to defend himself — for letting them all in. It’s a technique so good, Dutton used it again for Palestinians fleeing genocide.

Got it wrong? Claim you apologised

In the event previous comments turn out to be mistaken — or at least politically inconvenient — you can always back off and apologise. That’s what grown-up people do, after all. But what if you don’t want to actually apologise? Just say you apologised, and that will fix things. An actual apology need never pass your lips.

The mature statesman doesn’t seek to exploit terrorist attacks, but uses them to try to bring us together and encourage affected groups to work with security agencies. What better way than to blame ethnic communities for protecting terrorists, when in fact it was agencies in your own portfolio that failed to prevent a known radicalised individual with links to terror groups from carrying out an attack? Nothing says community cohesion like pointing the finger at Muslims! And back it up by suggesting Muslim MPs would be a “disaster”.

Tell renters they’re immature

You can’t expect the leader of the Coalition to love Labor and Greens voters — but as a key participant in our democracy, Dutton is naturally respectful of the whole electorate, even if they don’t back him. So you can forgive him if he allows the occasional tiny exception to creep in: the nearly one-third of Australians who rent are, he says, immature. But hey, they’ll grow up and learn to love the Coalition.

We can all agree, surely, that Dutton has some good advice for improved public debate. Perhaps not so much if you’re Muslim, a renter, a journalist, a Labor MP, or an Indigenous person, but who needs them for civil discourse? Finally, something positive in an otherwise tawdry election campaign.

Did we miss any of your favourite tips from Dutton’s tome on respectful debate?

We want to hear from you. Write to us at [email protected] to be published in Crikey. Please include your full name. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.