The Coalition’s fear and exaggeration campaign

They lie and they lie and they lie, and nobody picks them up on it. A strategy of political mobilisation that ignores the public interest.

Peter Dutton and Senator Bridget McKenzie told obvious lies about fuel efficiency standards in Killmore, but the media failed to call them out.

In analyzing the Coalition’s strategy within the Australian political landscape, one cannot overlook the instrumental use of fear campaigns and exaggeration as tools for political mobilisation and unfair electoral advantage. The essence of such a strategy is not new; it has roots in the annals of conservative political history where fear has often been leveraged as a potent catalyst for influencing public opinion and swaying electoral outcomes.

Robert Menzies did it in the 1950s with the fear of communism; John Howard and the fear of asylum seekers and the “war on terror” in the late 1990s, and Tony Abbott with the outright fear of everything and anything. The Liberal Party and the National Party have demonstrated a proclivity for employing such tactics, particularly evident in their approach to various policy debates and election campaigns: Peter Dutton is the bookend of this Liberal tradition of vacuous negativity and ramping up the fear and loathing.

And so it was with the Coalition’s response to the federal government’s proposal for a national vehicle efficiency standard. This initiative, grounded in environmental and economic rationality, aimed to reduce emissions while offering financial savings to the average Australian car driver—estimated at around $1,000 per year and $17,000 over the life of the vehicle. However, the Coalition’s counter-narrative framed this policy as a punitive measure, dubbing it a “car tax” and projecting it as a direct threat to a specific segment of the Australian populace: tradies.

This narrative was spearheaded by Senator Bridget McKenzie and Dutton, who criticised Labor’s policy by claiming it would disproportionately impact tradies and get them to be “smashed between the eyes”, suggesting an increase in the price of utes by an unsubstantiated $25,000. This claim, lacking in clarity, detail or evidence, was less about the factual inaccuracy and more about the emotional resonance with a demographic perceived as crucial to the Coalition’s electoral base.

The rhetoric employed by the Coalition does not exist in a vacuum; it is a strategic choice aimed at replicating the success of past campaigns, notably the 2019 federal election victory under Scott Morrison. This approach seeks to galvanise support by appealing to the fears and economic concerns of tradies, projecting the Coalition as their protector against perceived Labor Party threats. However, this strategy simplifies the diverse political and economic perspectives within the tradie demographic, ignoring the nuances of their voting behaviours and priorities.

Tradies are the starting point: the Coalition’s campaign strategy extends beyond targeting tradies to broader implications on gender and environmental policy. The opposition to the vehicle efficiency standard, coupled with derogatory rhetoric towards renewable energy and electric vehicles, positions the Coalition against progressive environmental initiatives, framing them as somehow antithetical to the interests of the “average Australian.” This not only polarises the electorate along gender lines, appealing to a “blokey” identity while potentially alienating professional women, but also underscores a resistance to environmental sustainability.

The underlying issue with the Coalition’s strategy is its reliance on fear and exaggeration without offering a constructive vision for Australia’s future. This essentially was their strategy for their time in office between 2013–22, which turned out to be disaster for Australia—government lead by ego and personal ambitions, and hoping to maintain office without implementing any useful policy.

The reference to past tactics, such as “stopping the boats” and tax cuts under Tony Abbott’s leadership, highlights a pattern of short-term electoral gains at the expense of long-term policy substance. This approach, while historically effective in certain contexts, raises questions about its sustainability and the potential for alienating broader segments of the Australian electorate.

The Coalition’s use of fear campaigns and exaggeration serves as a case study in the complexities of political strategy within a democratic society. While such tactics may mobilise specific voter bases in the short term—usually appealing to base instincts and getting these groups to vote against their own interests—they risk undermining the foundational principles of informed debate and constructive policy-making. The challenge for Australian politics, and indeed for democratic systems globally, is to navigate the delicate balance between electoral strategy and the imperative for visionary, inclusive, and sustainable governance.

Beyond environmental policy: Expanding the arena of fear and misinformation

The continuation of the Coalition’s fearmongering and exaggeration campaign extends beyond the confines of environmental policy and vehicle standards, moving into a broader critique of their opposition to progressive initiatives. This part of the analysis delves deeper into the mechanisms of misinformation and the targeting of specific demographics and regional communities, as well as the implications for leadership and electoral prospects within the Australian political context.

The narratives promoted by the Coalition, particularly through figures such as leader of the National Party, David Littleproud, perpetuates a dichotomy between urban and rural Australia. Littleproud’s assertion that fuel efficiency standards would “take away the country ute” and discriminate against regional people is a calculated move to stoke fears of disenfranchisement among rural voters. This narrative, unsupported by evidence, suggests that electric vehicles lack the capability for agricultural work, a claim directly contradicted by the advancements in EV technology, which include powerful electric farm utes and heavy roadside vehicles. The reluctance to acknowledge the capabilities of electric transportation, even in the face of electrically powered commuter trains across Australia, highlights a deliberate choice to prioritise ideological opposition over practical and environmental considerations.

This strategy of misinformation is amplified by a media landscape that often fails to scrutinise these claims, allowing them to be presented as fact without counterargument. This lack of journalistic integrity and interrogation enables the Coalition to perpetuate myths about the impracticality and economic impact of transitioning to more sustainable practices, without addressing the long-term benefits of such a shift for both the environment and the economy.

The rhetoric utilised by Scott Morrison during the 2019 election campaign, warning of the “end of the weekend” and “see you later to the SUV” if Labor policies on electric cars were implemented, exemplifies the Coalition’s approach to fearmongering. By framing the debate around the loss of freedom and leisure, the Coalition seeks to mobilise ignorant voters through emotional appeal rather than factual debate. This strategy, while effective in rallying a base resistant to change, fails to engage with the broader implications of climate change and technological innovation on Australian society.

The upcoming Dunkley by-election serves as a focal point for these tactics, with the Coalition ramping up its campaign in hopes of generating a protest vote against the perceived threats posed by electric vehicle policies and broader progressive agendas. However, the unpopularity of figures such Peter Dutton, especially a more progressive state such as Victoria, signals a potential miscalculation in the Coalition’s strategy. Dutton’s stance and rhetoric may resonate with certain segments of the Queensland electorate—which is where he is from—but it risks alienating voters in key battlegrounds such as Victoria and New South Wales, underscoring a broader issue of leadership and electoral viability for the Coalition.

The Dunkley by-election is a litmus test for Dutton’s leadership and the Coalition’s electoral strategy. The anticipation of Dutton’s political vulnerability in Victoria, coupled with a broader dissatisfaction within the Liberal Party, suggests a moment of reckoning. The outcome of the by-election could either reinforce the Coalition’s current trajectory or necessitate a re-evaluation of their approach to leadership, policy, and electoral strategy.

The Coalition’s reliance on fear campaigns and exaggeration reflects a deeper struggle within Australian politics to reconcile the demands of progress with the preservation of traditional values and lifestyles. While such tactics may offer short-term electoral gains, they risk undermining the capacity for substantive policy debate and long-term planning, essential for addressing the complex challenges facing Australia in the 21st century.