Joe Hildebrand: Peter Dutton’s election danger zone in Dickson where there’s a nuclear reaction at risk

Just publicly raising this election threat that Peter Dutton faces could increase the likelihood of it happening, argues Joe Hildebrand.

The Ancient Roman magistrate Lucius Cassius had a simple test for determining the source of any skulduggery or scuttlebutt: “Cui bono” or “Who benefits?”

Two thousand years later it is still a vital rule of thumb in politics. Every piece of information you read and hear is there for a reason. Who is it coming from and why do they want it out there?

If, for example, polling commissioned by a candidate shows that candidate is doing very well it’s probably best that you take those numbers with a barrel full of salt.

Likewise if polling commissioned by a particular interest group shows that its interests align uncannily with the electorates you might want to wash that down with a spoonful of sodium chloride as well.

Often such “information” is released in an effort to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. A low-profile candidate is presented as a dark horse and suddenly people start paying attention to them and their chances of winning thus improve.

Recent polling about Chris Bowen’s seat of McMahon fits squarely in this category.

Likewise by releasing figures saying how worried the electorate is about something raises the profile of that issue and thus makes the electorate more worried about it.

Ever wondered why everybody’s suddenly talking about an endangered fish in Tasmanian salmon farms that no one had ever heard of before?

Peter Dutton attends a a rally in Mount Pleasant on the campaign trail for the 2025 federal election. Picture Thomas Lisson / NewsWire

This brings us to a tantalising poll that showed Peter Dutton was set to lose his seat because of a “toxic” issue in his Brisbane electorate of Dickson.

The survey of 854 voters conducted by UComms showed Labor’s Ali France was ahead of Dutton 52-48 two-party preferred.

And that “toxic” issue? Apparently 46 per cent of respondents “said they were less likely to vote for Dutton due to his plan to build nuclear reactors”.

And who commissioned the survey? The Queensland Conservation Council.

Now I’m no psychic but I’ve got a feeling that the Queensland Conservation Council is not particularly pro-nuclear.

Peter Dutton attends a a rally in Mount Pleasant on the campaign trail with Jacinta Price and Michaelia Cash for the 2025 federal election. Picture Thomas Lisson / NewsWire

Of course there are no plans for a nuclear reactor in the seat of Dickson but that is beside the point, which is: Nuclear bad, Dutton in trouble.

But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, however radioactive it might be.

Because almost a week before this poll was released I was told by senior Labor figures that Dutton really is in a world of pain in his own seat, which the ALP is throwing baby, bathwater and the kitchen sink at.

And given the Opposition Leader holds it by just 1.7 per cent — making it the most marginal seat in Queensland — it is entirely possible based on the latest national polls.

Normally you would expect a swing against the government at its second outing, and a bit of extra padding if the local MP is the potential future PM, but this election appears to be heading in the other direction.

And of course just publicly raising the prospect that Dutton could lose his seat could increase the likelihood of it happening — soft and undecided voters may see which way the majority of their community is leaning and figure they may as well go with the flow.

That’s the only nuclear reaction at risk of occurring in that electorate.

Originally published as Joe Hildebrand: Peter Dutton’s election danger zone in Dickson where there’s a nuclear reaction at risk