
How to recognise and resist deceptive political tactics – and avoid ‘Trump Australian style’.
By Sue Barrett
In Australia’s political landscape, gaslighting has become an insidious tool used by some politicians to manipulate public perception, often at the expense of truth and transparency. From distorting facts to manufacturing outrage, these tactics are designed to confuse, mislead, and ultimately trick people into voting against their own best interests.
Many of these tactics are disguised under the banners of groups like Advance Australia and Australians for Prosperity, which are fronts for billionaires and the fossil fuel and coal industries, pushing agendas that serve corporate interests over the public good.
To safeguard our democracy, we must be vigilant. Here’s a checklist to help you identify when you might be getting gaslit by politicians and political parties like the Liberal-National Coalition and others who use deception as a strategy.

Checklist for political gaslighting
1. Questioning established facts or science
Look out for politicians who challenge well-established scientific consensus or data from reputable institutions. This tactic is used to sow doubt and justify harmful policies.
Example: When Peter Dutton dismissed the CSIRO’s energy cost assessments, falsely suggesting bias where none existed.
Behaviour: Dutton has consistently questioned the reliability of climate science, particularly regarding the cost and effectiveness of renewable energy over fossil fuels. He has pushed for nuclear energy, often citing outdated or selective data to challenge the consensus on climate change.
2. Faux outrage
Be wary of dramatic or exaggerated outrage that seems disproportionate to the issue at hand. This is often a distraction from their own policy failures.
Example: Politicians decrying the cost of environmental policies as an “economic apocalypse” while ignoring the benefits of sustainable investment.
Behaviour: Barnaby Joyce has been known to make dramatic statements about the economic implications of moving away from coal, exaggerating the negative impacts on jobs and the economy while downplaying or ignoring the potential benefits of transitioning to renewable energy sources.
3. The victimhood narrative
Some leaders claim to be victims of media bias, political vendettas, or public misunderstanding to deflect from their own actions.
Example: When politicians suggest they are being unfairly targeted rather than addressing legitimate scrutiny of their decisions.
Behaviour: Several LNP politicians, including George Christensen and Tony Abbott, have portrayed themselves as victims of media bias. They often imply or directly state that conservative policies are unfairly criticised or misrepresented by what they describe as a “left-leaning” media.
4. Diversion tactics
Notice if a politician frequently changes the subject or brings up unrelated issues when faced with criticism.
Example: During debates on economic policy failures, shifting focus to immigration or crime rates instead of answering direct questions.
Behaviour: During economic discussions, LNP figures like Scott Morrison have often shifted the conversation to immigration or national security issues, particularly when facing scrutiny over economic policies. This tactic distracts from the original critique and changes the debate’s focus.
5. Oversimplification or misrepresentation
Beware of claims that reduce complex issues to black-and-white choices.
Example: Suggesting that environmental policies will “wreck the economy” while ignoring job creation in renewables.
Behaviour: Barnaby Joyce has shown a tendency to oversimplify complex environmental policies like net zero emissions, presenting them as economically disastrous without acknowledging the potential for innovation and job creation in green industries.
6. Personal attacks and deflection
Instead of addressing policy criticism, some politicians attack critics or whistleblowers to shift the focus.
Example: Michaelia Cash threatening to “name every young woman” in an opposing politician’s office, rather than responding to scrutiny.
Behaviour: Michaelia Cash’s behaviour during Senate Estimates, where she threatened to name staff members of opposition politicians, exemplifies using personal attacks to deflect from substantive policy discussions or criticisms of her or her party’s actions.
7. Selective truth-telling
Politicians might cherry-pick data that supports their narrative while dismissing inconvenient facts.
Example: Highlighting isolated economic downturns to criticise a government while ignoring broader economic growth.
Behaviour: LNP politicians often highlight specific economic downturns or job losses in particular sectors to criticise opposition policies while they tend to overlook or downplay broader economic growth or positive employment trends that might not fit their narrative.
8. Creating a false choice
Beware of rhetoric that frames issues as having only two extreme options.
Example: Suggesting the only alternative to fossil fuels is economic collapse, while ignoring viable energy transitions.
Behaviour: Peter Dutton’s approach to energy policy often presents a stark choice between nuclear energy and economic decline, effectively ignoring or downplaying the significant advancements and potential of renewable energy technologies.
9. Polarisation for political gain
Some leaders deliberately stoke division by framing policies as “us versus them” to consolidate their base.
Example: Claiming that supporters of climate action are “anti-Australian” or “job destroyers.”
Behaviour: Matt Canavan has engaged in rhetoric that pits rural communities against environmental policies, especially around issues like land clearance, aiming to polarise public opinion and consolidate support within certain voter bases by framing it as an “us vs. them” scenario.
10. Undermining achievements
If a government’s successes are consistently dismissed or reframed as failures, it may be an attempt to gaslight the public into believing progress hasn’t been made.
Example: Claiming any reduction in unemployment is purely luck, rather than acknowledging policy impacts.
Behaviour: LNP politicians like former Coalition Treasurer Josh Frydenberg have frequently minimised the impact of positive economic developments by attributing them to external factors like global markets rather than acknowledging successful domestic policies. This behaviour undermines public perception of government achievements.
A warning against the ‘Trump Australian style’
Gaslighting tactics, as seen globally, lead to a political environment where truth is malleable, opponents are vilified, and public trust in democratic institutions erodes. Do we want to end up with a “Trump Australian style,” where facts are distorted, power is prioritised over people, and misinformation reigns supreme? The answer must be a resounding NO.
What can you do?
- Stay informed: Rely on credible sources, not just political soundbites.
- Ask questions: When politicians make bold claims, demand evidence.
- Engage in debate: Discuss policies with others to challenge misleading narratives.
- Hold leaders accountable: Vote based on policies and track records, not fear-mongering.
By using this checklist, we can cut through the noise, demand integrity from our leaders, and ensure that our democracy remains rooted in truth, fairness, and transparency. Let’s demand better for Australia.

Resources
Why so many incompetent men become leaders
– 10 min video on Youtube by psychologist Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

Truth in political advertising legislation remains in limbo – that’s why I’m launching the Ethical Political Advertising Code (EPAC) – a voluntary pledge for politicians to commit to factual and accurate political advertising. Find out more at zalisteggall.com.au/EPAC
— Zali Steggall (@zalisteggall.bsky.social) February 13, 2025 at 3:56 PM
[image or embed]

Vote Community Independents – Not shit candidates list
This blogpost was first published on Sue Barrett’s blog and is republished here with permission from the author.