Recent comments by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have continued a troubling trend: the misuse of terrorism rhetoric to perpetuate systemic racism and advance political agendas.
Their recent statements and actions reveal how both major parties are exploiting fear-driven narratives to maintain their grip on power, with severe consequences for marginalised communities.
At a recent press conference with ASIO’s Director-General, Albanese controversially suggested that the Greens’ support for international humanitarian law—along with their criticism of Labor’s alleged complicity in genocide—could contribute to terrorism threats.
This implies that advocating for global human rights equates to fostering terrorism, a dangerous and misleading assumption that undermines the principles of international law.
In a follow-up interview, the ASIO Director-General defended the use of terms like “Islamic,” “Islamist,” and “religiously-motivated” rather than “politically motivated” violent extremism. Such terminology exacerbates xenophobia and fuels far-right extremism.
His defence of the language while in the same interview saying that “words matter” reveals an underlying institutional commitment to continuing to conflate Islam with terrorism. This is helpful to politicians for the reasons explored below.
The ASIO Director then suggested Palestinian refugees would be assessed for violent ideology but if they sympathised with Hamas out of support for their homeland, that wasn’t enough to exclude them.
Dutton has seized on this rhetoric, accusing Labor of manipulating ASIO and questioning the acceptance of Palestinian refugees from “terrorist-controlled” areas. His conflation of Palestinian refugees with terrorism risks is highly problematic.
It is worth noting that countries like Israel, which faces allegations of serious international crimes, have not been subjected to similar immigration bans.
Labor MPs from highly multicultural seats came out to attack Dutton, positioning Labor as more moderate on racial issues.
But those Labor MPs and the media don’t mention Labor’s introduction of a migration bill months earlier that enables a future minister to do exactly what Dutton proposes on Gaza. It allows blanket immigration bans at a minister’s discretion where they deem it “in the national interest”.
If passed, this bill would enable future ministers to impose widespread bans on immigrants or visitors based on their country or territory of origin, creating a climate of fear and insecurity within communities.
The Bill was widely criticised by refugee and humanitarian groups but Labor may still pass it with the help of the LNP but it is popular in fear-driven electorates.
This pattern of using national security concerns for political advantage is deeply troubling. Both Labor and the LNP have engaged in this game, with Labor starting the rhetoric and the LNP ramping it up.
The result is a political environment where fear and suspicion are weaponised, undermining rational debate.
Studies show that increased terrorism rhetoric in the media diminishes rational and empathetic responses, leaving the public more susceptible to manipulation.
Awareness of how both major parties use it to maintain their grip on power is the first step to addressing its impact.
Comments