Honesty needed from Albanese and Chalmers to win trust and counter populists

When Anthony Albanese reneges on his pledge not to touch investor tax concessions on Tuesday, his government will present the nation with a set of numbers to justify the shift.

The modelling is expected to show how, over time, first-home buyers will make up a larger proportion of home purchases.

The numbers will be used to argue that the imperative to create a fairer economic system, particularly at a time of fragmentation and global upheaval, outweighs the need to stick to an unequivocal election promise. 

Unlike John Howard’s call to propose a GST after ruling it out, Albanese will not give voters the chance to have a say at an election before introducing it.

Howard had a pattern of admitting when he’d made mistakes: he also proffered mea culpas about his objections to Asian immigration and then in 2001, said he had been “plainly wrong” about voters’ priorities and offered a fuel excise.

Albanese may not have any time for Howard, the conservative hero and current antagonist. And the prime minister’s allies think he’s mastered the modern political arena in the same way Howard did in his day.

But open and honest language from Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers would be welcomed. Particularly if Albanese’s aim is, as he says, to guard Australia against populist resentment and restore faith in the social contract and institutions.

On Monday, in one of his first long interviews foreshadowing the broken pledge, Albanese told the ABC that “we certainly didn’t say that we would cut fuel taxes”.

The excise cut in response to the war in Iran is plainly different from the call to raise taxes on property investors and family trusts.

Asked what had changed since May last year on housing affordability, he said, “So many people have had another year of missing out at auctions, of renting”.

“Another year has passed since the election and not enough has changed,” he said. “If we do change our position on any policy, we will explain why.”

In other words, a problem that was well known before the election has remained a problem.

House prices dropped in Sydney and Melbourne in April, but have grown modestly over the past 12 months.

Few voters would quibble with Albanese’s remarks about the social consequences of so many years of inflated prices.

Many voters will also tire of the repetitive debate over a broken promise. The argy-bargy is the result of an often tiresome rule-in-rule-out game that forces politicians to guarantee things into the future. The same type of question caused Tony Abbott to rule out cuts that he went on to propose in his 2014 budget.

As UNSW economist Richard Holden said on Monday: “Does it really matter if Labor’s election promises are broken for the right or wrong reasons?”

“I care a lot more about what the tax changes are… None of the leaked policies are ‘reform’ of any magnitude. Tax reform changes incentives to drive productivity and growth.”

Policy hardheads may overlook that the imperfect game of asking for guarantees in election campaign remains one of the few tools to understand how a leader will act if they win.

Albanese no doubt finds the game tiresome, but voters have a right to know.

When Albanese and Chalmers speak on Tuesday, they’ll be addressing not just the voters who they believe will back their changes, or those they think can be brought into Labor’s tent.

They’ll also be heard by the angry voters who will never vote Labor and are flocking to Pauline Hanson, the ones who already believe all politicians are dishonest.

They, too, deserve an honest explanation that respects their intelligence and shows Albanese is a prime minister for the whole country, truly interested in social cohesion not just political success.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.