Australia is gearing up for federal elections set to be held this May, and polls indicate that opposition leader and Liberal Party head Peter Dutton is likely to become the country’s prime minister following the vote. Dutton’s rhetoric closely mirrors that of the American president’s, a style that has previously gained little traction in Australia. He criticizes migrants, challenges inclusivity, and advocates for nationalism. While some political analysts argue that Dutton is more style than substance, Trump’s recent actions aimed at confronting the “woke” agenda ought to offer a cautionary tale for any populist-curious members of the Australian electorate.
Trumpism has already taken hold among numerous American politicians and influential billionaires, even those who once presented themselves as being staunchly opposed to the populist movement. Thus it should come as no surprise that some Australian billionaires and politicians have been just as quick to express their admiration for the Oval Office occupant this time around. After Trump’s election victory in November, Hancock Prospecting billionaire Gina Rinehart, Australia’s richest person, bought an entire page in The Wall Street Journal to send a glowing congratulatory message printed next to a photograph of Trump hugging the American flag:
Celebration Time!
Like many all over the world, we salute your leadership, President-elect Trump. Thank you for standing up, no matter what is thrown against you. We well know you love your country and are exceptionally dedicated to its people. Many in Australia and around the world are given hope and much needed inspiration thanks to your election.
Best wishes from your Aussie friends,
Gina Rinehart and friends
Rinehart later attended Trump’s victory party at Mar-a-Lago in Florida. In an interview with The Sydney Morning Herald after returning to Australia, she made several statements in support of the new U.S. leader’s policies. The billionaire declared that she wanted Australia to “watch and learn” from Trump on how to carry out a “complete rejection of the entire leftist agenda.”
“Mr. Trump stood armed with conviction, huge courage, incredible untiring effort, and a real love of the USA and the American people… I do hope Australia watches and learns as they see that cutting government tape, cutting taxes, and cutting government wastage lifts people up, and lifts living standards,” Rinehart said.
Another well-known figure in Australia who embraced “Trumpism” is Clive Palmer, a billionaire and politician who made his fortune in natural resources. At the end of February, Palmer founded a new political party whose name — “Trumpet of Patriots” — is a clear nod to the once-and-current U.S. president.
The party plans to field candidates in Australia’s upcoming federal elections. At its founding conference, Palmer made a statement in rhetoric strikingly similar to the American president’s: “Trumpet of Patriots will make Australia great again!”
At the founding conference, Palmer made a statement strikingly reminiscent of the American president’s rhetoric: “Trumpet of Patriots will make Australia great again!”
Palmer makes no secret of the fact that he has been heavily influenced by Trump and his policies. The Australian politician also announced his intention to import several of Trump’s ideas, including a ban on transgender athletes in women’s sports and the official recognition of only two genders. In true Trumpian fashion — and in line with his calls for reducing government spending — the outspoken businessman also vowed to finally “drain the [political] swamp” in Canberra, Australia’s capital. Many still recall how, at the founding meeting, Palmer accidentally misspoke, referring to his party as Trumpet of Parrots instead of Trumpet of Patriots. A correspondent for Australia’s The Guardian immediately joked that this name would have been far more fitting.
Both Palmer and Rinehart possess great wealth; however, she still lacks political influence, and he remains more of a political eccentric, a marginal figure whose views are unlikely to significantly impact Australia’s future. A different matter entirely is Peter Dutton, a likely candidate for prime minister, whose flirtation with Trump’s ideas could have far greater consequences.
The main battle in this May’s federal elections is expected to be between the Australian Labor Party, led by current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and the alliance between Dutton’s Liberal Party and the right-wing National Party. Like Trump, Dutton has sought to accumulate political capital by singling out certain ethnic groups in Australian society. In 2018, while serving as Minister of Home Affairs, he accused the leadership of the state of Victoria of allowing “African gangs” to run rampant and, arguing that excessive political correctness had prevented the authorities from addressing the issue.
In an interview at the time, Dutton stated: “People are scared to go out to restaurants of a night time because they are followed home by these gangs. And the state government's wrapped its police force up in this politically correct conversation — which I think they're trying to break out of, and they are trying to do the right thing — but I think the state government's really been caught flat-footed.”
Dutton also criticized the state’s judges. While serving as Minister for Immigration in 2016, he made statements in parliament that were widely regarded as borderline racist. He claimed that the Australian government had made many mistakes in the late 1970s and early 1980s by allowing certain people into the country — primarily referring to Muslims from Lebanon, a country that was then engulfed in a civil war.
While serving as Minister for Immigration in 2016, he made statements in parliament that were widely regarded as borderline racist
Dutton continues to promote the same views today. Regarding Palestinians, whom Trump has proposed expelling from Gaza, Dutton stated in his parliamentary speeches: “I don’t think people should be coming in from that war zone at all at the moment. It’s not prudent to do so and I think it puts our national security at risk.”
Current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese criticized Dutton for his remarks, noting that the opposition leader “always tries to sow division.”
In 2023, Australia held a referendum in which Anthony Albanese’s Labor government proposed amending the Australian Constitution in order to establish a special advisory body called “The Voice.” Had the initiative been approved, The Voice would have represented the country’s Indigenous population, which has faced discrimination, and would have provided recommendations on government policies affecting Aboriginal Australians.
Aboriginal Australians make up 3.2% of the country’s population, with their numbers estimated at 813,000 in 2012. Supporters of the initiative hoped such changes would improve the quality of life for Indigenous people. However, nearly 60% of Australians voted against the proposal in the referendum.
Dutton’s side might have prevailed in that vote, but he nevertheless took measures to prepare for a possible defeat at the polls. Before the outcome was clear, the opposition leader, much like Trump in 2020, publicly cast doubt on whether the Australian Electoral Commission would count the votes fairly. He specifically questioned long-standing rules regarding ballot formatting in referendums. With his unprecedented statements suggesting possible election fraud in Australia, Dutton immediately drew the ire of his opponents.
“Seeking to cast doubt on the legitimacy of a referendum or election result like this…are similar to Trump’s playbook,” said Green Party Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. “It looks like Peter Dutton will do anything, even undermine faith in our democratic processes, to score cheap political points,” added independent MP Monique Ryan. And they had a point. Many Australians believed him.
“We have one of the strongest electoral systems in the world. Yet the AEC reported a significant increase in claims about voter fraud during the last election, mostly imported arguments from the U.S.,” noted a Green Party senator after the referendum results were announced.
Even before Trump’s victory, American society was already debating the necessity and practicality of so-called DEI initiatives (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), which promote equal opportunities for all people, regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, or other factors that could be grounds for discrimination.
These principles began shaping American society as early as the 1960s. In 1961, U.S. President John F. Kennedy signed an executive order introducing “affirmative action” — a policy requiring employers to take proactive steps to combat discrimination rather than merely responding to complaints or addressing cases after discrimination had already occurred.
Then came discussions about “positive discrimination” — granting limited preferences to historically and traditionally oppressed groups. Supporters argue that this approach helps address societal inequality, while opponents claim it offers unwarranted advantages to less qualified individuals. Of course, DEI principles are not limited to “positive discrimination.” They also include efforts to build physical infrastructure for people with disabilities, and to encourage “blind hiring” practices.
However, in 2023, debates over the “fairness” of such policies intensified in the U.S. when the Supreme Court banned the consideration of race in college admissions, ruling affirmative action unconstitutional. Republicans and conservatives welcomed the decision. President Biden condemned it. But it was too late.
By 2024, major American corporations began abandoning DEI principles, and Elon Musk went so far as to declare that “DEI must die.” After returning to office in January, Trump revoked DEI policies in the public sector, halted the publication of equity and inclusion guidelines, and placed officials responsible for DEI initiatives on leave. Other executive orders included banning transgender people from serving in the military and removing DEI programs from the armed forces, a move he highlighted in his recent address to Congress.
Around the same time, Dutton began voicing his dissatisfaction with the growing influence of inclusivity policies in Australia, calling for them to be annulled. Just hours after Trump — citing fabricated data — blamed inclusivity programs for the plane crash that killed several figure skaters over the Potomac, Peter Dutton stated:
“Positions advertised [on government employment websites] have included culture, diversity and inclusion advisers… Such positions, as I say, do nothing to improve the lives of everyday Australians.”
This was not Dutton’s first such statement. In early 2021, Australia’s ministry of defense was still sending out a memo recommending that employees organize events for the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia, which was set to be observed on May 17. The memo stated: “Defence ADF and APS employees are encouraged to acknowledge [this day] in a COVID-safe manner. Examples for activity include hosting morning teas, encouraging discussions regarding the importance of [this day], raising awareness of LGBTI rights and wearing visible rainbow clothing or ally pins.” The purpose of these events, it explained, was to show “support for our LGBTI colleagues, friends and family by standing against prejudice and discrimination, and demonstrating inclusion.”
However, in March of that same year, Dutton became Minister of Defense. In May, when ministry staff, following the earlier recommendations, held morning teas to mark the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia, Dutton immediately expressed his discontent, issuing an order banning such events and attire in his ministry. The new minister’s directive stated:
“Defence represents the people of Australia and must at all times be focused on our primary mission to protect Australia’s national security interests. We must not be putting effort into matters that distract from this… To meet these important aims, changing language protocols and those events such as morning teas where personnel are encouraged to wear particular clothes in celebration… are not required and should cease.”
Dutton issued an order banning events in support of LGBTI in his ministry
Dutton, very much in the style of Donald Trump and his adviser Elon Musk, explained at the time: “I have made it clear to commanders that I will not tolerate discrimination. But we are not in the business of promoting a woke agenda. Our task is to boost morale in the Australian Armed Forces, and this woke agenda does nothing to help with that.”
Dutton’s ban was overturned by his successor, Richard Marles, in August 2023.
Peter Dutton rejects comparisons to Trump, along with any accusation that he is trying to emulate the American president. In an interview with 60 Minutes, when host Karl Stefanovic suggested that “From what Australians have seen thus far, they may be forgiven for thinking that you are right up Donald Trump’s ass,” Dutton responded that such claims were merely Labor Party talking points. He even argued that he would be willing to oppose Trump’s policies if necessary.
“And where will you go up against Trump?” the journalist pressed.
In response, Dutton said that the most obvious issue was the economic tariffs the U.S. had threatened to impose on Australia. “I think this damages our relationship. If they stay in place, it’s not in our interests and not in the United States' interests,” the politician stated, though he did not clarify whether he had any ideological differences with the new American leader.
Still, if one were to look, such differences could be found.
For example, Dutton has so far avoided direct discussions on gender issues and has not pledged to introduce any bans on transgender people — something that Trump has already done. Almost immediately after Trump issued executive orders restricting transgender rights, Dutton’s coalition partner in parliament — National Party leader David Littleproud, who is even further right on the political spectrum than is Dutton himself — was quick to suggest that Australia should also consider the gender issue. “I think there's elements of this that come to the core principle of protecting women, particularly in things like sport. I think women should be competing against other women,” Littleproud stated in an interview at the time.
Less than an hour later, journalists were already questioning Dutton about his thoughts on the proposal from his coalition partner. He responded firmly, distancing himself from Trump’s narratives and stating that as prime minister, he would not reconsider the policy on this matter.
Dutton and Trump also differ on their views regarding the war in Ukraine. For example, Trump’s claim that Zelensky is a dictator was unequivocally rejected by Dutton:
“Australia should stand strong and proud with the people of Ukraine. It’s a democracy and this is a fight for civilization. Vladimir Putin is a murderous dictator, and we shouldn’t be giving him an inch. I think President Trump has got it wrong in relation to some of the public commentary that I’ve seen him make in relation to President Zelenskyy and the situation in the [sic] Ukraine. And I think very careful thought needs to be given about the next steps, because if we make Europe less safe, or we provide some sort of support to Putin, deliberately or inadvertently, that is a terrible, terrible outcome.”
The level of political polarization in Australia remains much lower than in the U.S., and some Australian political analysts suggest that Dutton is adopting Trump’s methods primarily to secure an election victory — with no serious intentions to, for instance, alter the inclusivity policies widely embedded in Australian society.
However, as other experts note, it is still possible that Australia could follow the U.S. model of rolling back inclusivity practices. After all, the virus of Trumpism is still not fully understood, and its progression is unpredictable. It is entirely possible that Australia, which managed the COVID-19 pandemic so effectively, may not be able to completely avoid this new affliction — in this case, its geographical isolation from the rest of the world might not even be enough.