'Broken promise' or not, Anthony Albanese's tax decision has helped One Nation

After Labor targeted the threat of One Nation in a recent appeal to supporters for donations, the insurgents played tit for tat.

One Nation on Wednesday launched its own fundraising campaign around the slogan "Fire the Liar". By evening, it claimed to have raised more than $1 million, rising fast.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese cast doubt on the numbers. Other Labor sources suggested it was a scam. One Nation said it would have the fund independently audited. That produced a tick.

Putting aside the dispute over figures, given One Nation's popularity surge, there are multiple reasons why alienated voters might be donating to its campaign. Among them, Albanese's cavalier breaking of election promises has poured kerosene on the fire under a party that can no longer be called "minor".

This week marked another big step in the so far unstoppable One Nation march this year. Having put the Liberals on the mat and now the top party on primary votes in the polls, it declared it was turning its attention to Labor. Trucks with billboards headed to the electorates held by Albanese and Energy Minister Chris Bowen in Sydney. At the least, One Nation is messing with the prime minister's mind.

Let's return to that issue of the budget's broken promises. Does breaking your word in politics matter?

Some respected economic and political commentators have argued breaking promises in the budget is of no consequence; indeed, it was necessary and desirable.

Their justifications include: all politicians do it; the tax changes are good policy; Albanese has a big majority and should use it to bring about reform.

It's true most prime ministers have broken major promises: Bob Hawke (tax cuts), Paul Keating (tax cuts), John Howard (the "never, ever" GST, although he did take his plan to a subsequent election); Julia Gillard (no carbon tax); Tony Abbott (no cuts to various things).

It's also true big majorities provide the opportunity to undertake reforms that otherwise wouldn't get done because they're too hard politically.

But the counter case is strong. Saying promises don't matter diminishes the credibility of election campaigns. What's the point of making all that fuss about what leaders say in debates or elsewhere on the hustings if their later trashing of their word means nothing?

As for the argument that what the Albanese government has done with its tax changes is good policy, that's contested. Much depends on an observer's politics or their vested interests. 

Some of those overlooking the breach of trust would take a different stand if such a breach involved policies they disapproved. Even accepting the government's narrative about helping young home buyers and intergenerational equity, it will be months before we can be more definite about the success or failure of the changes.

We've seen from history that being up-front and taking major reform to an election can consign a leader to defeat, or help to do so.

In 1993, opposition leader John Hewson seemed set for a near-certain victory. But his ambitious program of economic change (Fightback) secured for Keating his so-called "unwinnable" election.

In 2019, Bill Shorten also appeared headed for a win, on a program that included tax changes similar (though not identical) to those in this year's budget. They weren't the only reason for Shorten's defeat, but they contributed.

If Labor had won in 2019, it would have sent the positive message that it is possible to take a reforming policy agenda to an election and secure a mandate for it. As things stand, the message is that it's electorally dangerous to be a big target.

Albanese's breach of trust is particularly ill-timed because of where we are in politics right now.

Voters' cynicism about politics, and especially the major parties, is rampant. Public distrust of the system and the people with most power in it is bringing about a major political shift, in which the rise of One Nation is a central part. The budget's broken promises help One Nation exploit public discontent and distrust, using its "Fire the Liar" slogan.

We can't assume Albanese "lied" in the campaign. To lie is, in a dictionary definition, "to say […] something that is not true in order to deceive someone". We don't know (beyond reasonable doubt) whether, when Albanese before the election flatly ruled out changing negative gearing and capital gains tax, he was saying one thing and intending (if conditions suited) to do another.

But by changing the tax arrangements in the budget, he was certainly breaking his word, breaching faith with voters.

It doesn't help that when tackled about this, the prime minister pushed back by endlessly repeating the phrase, "We changed our position". (Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who never worries too much about broken promises, remember he wanted to rework the stage three tax cuts from the start regardless of promises not to, has actually been rather more willing to admit the breach).

In certain cases, breaking promises is totally justified. That's when circumstances change, for example, when a pandemic hits or a global financial crisis arrives. Indeed, sometimes it is very unwise to stick to earlier undertakings. When international winds buffeted Australia in the early 1970s, prime minister Gough Whitlam's refusal to adapt to a new situation, to let go of aspects of his "program", was a major mistake.

In the year after the 2025 election, the widening Middle East conflict was a big development affecting Australia. But nothing substantial happened to alter the situation in relation to housing and tax policy in the period between the election and the budget.

It's not clear when Albanese abandoned "my word is my bond" as a core principle. Was it when he embraced changing the stage three tax cuts last term, or was that a one off? Was it before or after the 2025 election? Was it when he realised the risks of not responding to the pressure on his left flank to use his huge majority to push a more "Labor" agenda? Perhaps we will have to await a memoir.

What is clear is that his decision gave fodder to those seeking to feed the disillusionment that is overtaking a growing number of Australians, and that's unfortunate.

Michelle Grattan is a professorial fellow at the University of Canberra and chief political correspondent at The Conversation, where this article first appeared.