Labor rules something out before the election, wins, and then a year or two later discovers that exactly what it said wouldn't happen, and wouldn't be necessary, suddenly is.
It's getting exhausting - but this is the pattern Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese keep following: making stupid promises, then blaming voters (or the media) for expecting them to do what they promised.
The latest example is the government's about-face on axing negative gearing, widely expected as one of the headlines in next Tuesday's budget. Chalmers said this week that he is being 'upfront' with Australians that Labor was coming 'to a different view' on the issue.
'You build trust by taking the right decisions for the right reasons and explaining if you've come to a different view over time, being upfront and explaining why this has been the case,' he claimed, with a straight face.
There's a genuine policy case for revisiting negative gearing, in fact there has been for many years now. Housing affordability is a problem, and younger Australians are locked out of the market while the tax system subsidises leveraged property investing - and lots of it.
The case for reform is therefore very defensible.
But Labor didn't say before the last election that it would keep housing tax settings under review. It didn't say that reform might eventually be necessary. It said that the issue was closed, done and dusted, and it wouldn't be making any changes.
In other words, it lied! Unless you are naive enough to believe Labor had no idea whatsoever that post-election it might need to revisit the issue.
Labor rules something out before the election , wins, and then a year or two later discovers that exactly what it said wouldn't happen, and wouldn't be necessary, suddenly is. That's Treasurer Jim Chalmers' playbook
Labor's pre-election promise neutered the Coalition at the same time that Labor ran effective scare campaigns about what the Coalition might do.
For Labor’s part, it reassured voters scarred by Bill Shorten’s 2019 reform agenda that it wouldn’t be going anywhere near those ideas now.
It let Albo present Labor as modest and non-threatening. Then, once the election was won, the supposedly settled issue became live again.
We've seen this script now at both the 2022 and 2025 elections.
Stage three tax cuts were the issue in 2022. Labor promised to keep them, then redesigned them after winning office.
Superannuation followed identically. Labor assured voters of no changes forthwith, then taxed large balances more heavily. Surprise!
The policy argument for change on both issues has merit, just like negative gearing.
But Labor wanted to present one way politically before the election, before doing something differently afterwards. It was sneaky.
Albo and Jim's sneaky political tactic is very obvious: lie and spruik how trustworthy they are later
Is negative gearing fair? Does it worsen affordability? Should younger Australians subsidise tax breaks for older, wealthier asset holders?
Legitimate questions one and all. I just wish we could have serious debates about such decisions in the lead up to elections. Isn’t that how democracies are supposed to work?
Now we are forced to endure Jim Chalmers’ insufferable commentary that he’s backflipped simply because circumstances have changed, as though he wouldn’t have countenanced breaking election pledges were it not absolutely necessary to do so.
Voters are told to be mature. The media is told to stop obsessing over broken promises. Oppositions are accused of bad faith when they call broken promises out. The government, meanwhile presents itself as pragmatic and courageous, bravely adjusting while everyone else remains stuck in gotcha politics.
The adults in the room, if you will. Spare us the sanctimony and stop making promises you can’t keep!
Labor is unlikely to pay a price for yet another broken promise. The reversals have all been carefully targeted.
Stage three income tax re-writes benefited many voters, hurting only high-income earners.
Super changes hit people with massive balances, not the mainstream. Negative gearing reforms, expected in next week’s budget, will affect investors more than renters or first-home buyers.
The same goes for the expected cut to capital gains tax concessions, although to be fair I don't recall Labor ruling that possible change out.
It's promise-breaking by calculation.
Sometimes circumstances change, usually politicians just say whatever they need to say to win an election. If they don't want to be trapped by stupid promises, stop making them.