Peter Dutton's recent comments comparing the murderous tragedy of the Port Arthur massacre to a peaceful pro-Palestine protest are further proof the opposition leader seeks controversy over calm reasonable debate.

$0/

(min cost $0)

It is clearly his most used play, and he is sure it will make him the next PM.

Rightly, the comments have sparked controversy, and they warrant condemnation.

The Port Arthur massacre, a distressing event in Australian history, resulted in the loss of 35 innocent lives and left permanent scars on the nation's soul. It can not be overestimated the effect the tragedy continues to have on Tasmanians in particular.

Mr Dutton's overreach in drawing parallels between this horrendous act of violence and a political protest in Sydney is profoundly fallacious and heartless. His words trivialise a tragedy and deflect meaningful discussions.

The opposition leader has sought to argue both events had social significance, and he was drawing comparisons with John Howard's leadership and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's. Most people have seen right through that explanation for what it is: nonsense. Mr Dutton equated a peaceful protest to a massacre. In doing so, he undermined the gravity of the Port Arthur murders and disrespected the memory of its victims.

Mr Dutton's remarks hit their mark, though. They diverted media and academics from meaningful and intelligent debate on Australia's stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict and a two-state solution. By speaking about the Port Arthur tragedy in a political context, Mr Dutton once again played his most predictable card and fosters divisiveness and controversy.

Mr Dutton's insistence on doubling down on his comparison accentuates a concerning lack of sensitivity and good sense. His refusal to acknowledge the offensiveness of his comments only intensifies the hurt caused to those affected by the Port Arthur massacre and lessens the significance of their suffering.

But don't take my word for it. Members of his own party have criticised the comments. Liberal MP Bridget Archer labelled Dutton's comments as "incredibly disrespectful" and "wholly inappropriate." Once again, proving Ms Archer is everything a good people's representative should be. Similarly, Labor's federal member for Lyons, Brian Mitchell, condemned Mr Dutton's reference to the Port Arthur tragedy, emphasising the need for care in addressing such sensitive issues.

Peter Dutton's comparison of the Port Arthur massacre to a peaceful political protest is wrong on multiple levels.

Mr Dutton seeks to be our next Prime Minister. Australians must demand better from him and hold him accountable for his words and actions, especially when they deal with sensitive and gut-wrenching subjects like the Port Arthur massacre.

Craig Thomson is the editor of The Examiner.

I am a media and communications professional with experience across print, digital, social and radio broadcasts. I am currently the Editor of Australian Community Media's Launceston Examiner.