Peter Dutton has sought to rewrite history in a disgraceful appeal to prejudice. In broad strokes, he set out to besmirch the legacy of migration to Australia during the Fraser years, by claiming "the reality is that Malcolm Fraser did make mistakes in bringing some people in".
It is obvious that Mr Dutton is not interested in learning from the past, but instead has a political aim in the present. His intention is to sully the longstanding view that Mr Fraser presided over a successful immigration policy – a policy that was at its heart far more welcoming of refugees than the shameful stance adopted by contemporary politicians. Mr Fraser, a Liberal prime minister, was a consistent and potent critic of the cruel consensus of contemporary politicians to "stop the boats" and punish refugees, until his death last year.
More BusinessDay Videos
Dutton's remarks on Lebanese dangerous
It is reasonable to consider which groups make successful migrants, to try to work out why and try to lift the less successful. It is not reasonable to individualise a generalisation. Michael Pascoe comments.
That Mr Dutton is the minister responsible for immigration is an indictment of the character of this Coalition government. That Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has once again been unwilling to rein in his minister, following Mr Dutton's offensive tirade in May about "illiterate and innumerate" refugees, is equally damning to the quality of his leadership.
But Mr Dutton was not done. Under pressure to justify his derogatory remarks, he then set out to re-engineer his commentary to demonise the Lebanese community in Australia, or at least those who fled the civil war in the 1970s. "I'm on safe ground because I've relied on the facts," Mr Dutton has subsequently claimed, relying on advice that of the last 33 people charged with terrorist related offences in Australia, 22 are from Lebanese Muslim backgrounds.
Would the impression change if he counted back to the last 40 people charged? Or if he only looked at the background of the last five accused? Or, indeed, if he cited the ethnicity of the number of people actually convicted? It needn't matter, because again Mr Dutton's real intention is clear: to pander to the prejudice of hard-right supporters who have drifted towards Pauline Hanson's One Nation party.
Mr Dutton now claims to have been misrepresented. What nonsense. He made his original attack on Mr Fraser's legacy amid a general conversation about crime, in which he also recklessly speculated about people of Sudanese background. This willingness to generalise makes a mockery of Mr Dutton's feigned indignation when he claims he doesn't want to see entire communities defined by the actions of a few.
![Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has attacked the legacy of migration to Australia during the Fraser years.](/web/20161127094407im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/s/u/2/w/x/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gswv0o.png/1480039861022.jpg)
Labor is right that Mr Dutton's remarks are at odds with the goal of security agencies to build trust within communities that are preyed on by extremists. But Labor should also be careful not to define any community by the action of a handful of dangerous individuals. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten is on stronger ground when he labels Mr Dutton's remarks as "loud, lazy disrespect", and notes the description of "second and third-generation migrants" favoured by Mr Dutton is at odds with the inclusive notion of being Australian.
People living in Australia who have a parent or grandparent from Lebanon are as diverse in character as those found in any community.
Australia's multiculturalism is a great strength of the nation. But when particular minorities are stigmatised because of their ethnic background, the entire nation is diminished. If Mr Dutton wants to indulge in a history lesson, start with that fact.