Editorial: Will Crisafulli live to regret blurted-out promises?

Having already staked his election as premier on crime figures, David Crisafulli added another two pledges, writes the editor.

Opposition Leader David Crisafulli on Monday. Picture: Liam Kidston.

Campaigning politicians always want to sound visionary and be armed with a considered answer for every problem. But they can also get desperate and, in rasher moments, sometimes blurt out just about anything to try to win support.

We saw this at last week’s first leaders’ debate when Opposition Leader David Crisafulli made the biggest campaign promise so far – that he would resign after one term if the number of Queensland crime victims did not fall.

It was a bold call, given the seemingly intractable and complex nature of the problem – and an out-of-character lapse from a seriously disciplined political leader who has to date been delivering a masterclass in small-target campaigning.

Given he was badgered into the promise by a persistent journalist, it was likely not part of his pre-debate game plan. But now it is out there, a potent piece of ammunition for Labor to have in its back pocket for the 2028 election campaign, if the polls are right and Mr Crisafulli wins the election on October 26.

Yesterday he added another two pledges – to reduce the proportion of ambulances being “ramped” at hospitals to 30 per cent in his first term, and to “stabilise” surgery waiting lists within a year. He did not put his job on the line for either, though – saying the voters would hold him accountable for delivering on these.

But will it make any difference? Vote-chasing politicians are always making rash commitments that may or may not come back to bite them. Many seem to survive.

Remember Bob Hawke’s bold declaration in 1987 that “by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty”? He was wrong of course, but it hardly made a dent in Hawke’s political popularity.

Indeed, his comment, which was an ad libbed version of the prepared speech’s “no child need live in poverty”, is these days hailed as an example of bold, aspirational vision by a national leader.

We saw it in Queensland during the 1998 election, when then-premier Peter Beattie boldly – and in the minds of many – rashly promised to cut the state’s jobless rate from its more than 9 per cent to 5 per cent.

There was apparently little or no science behind the new target. According to one version of the tale, Mr Beattie had misinterpreted the five-minutes-to-go hand-signal from a staffer standing at the back of a press conference.

Whatever the truth, the pledge haunted Mr Beattie for years.

And yet he won not only the 1998 and 2001 elections, but also again in 2004, even though the state’s unemployment rate did not reach that target until later that year.

The current federal government has also been busily testing public willingness to forgive broken big pre-election promises.

It went to the election promising to keep the stage 3 tax cuts for higher income earners that had already been legislated. Upon taking office, Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese argued that economic circumstances had changed and so did away with the plan – in favour of smaller tax cuts for about six million households.

Consequently, Labor presumably has not lost too many voters over it.

More potentially painful is the challenge of delivering on a pre-election promise to reduce power prices by $275 on average this term.

So far, the only way this has been managed is by giving households a taxpayer-funded $300 rebate each. Whether it can achieve anything more permanent is yet to be seen.

But back to Mr Crisafulli. The greatest threat to his political future might be not what he promises, but what he does not get around to telling voters that he is planning.

There are clear political benefits to being a small target when up against an unpopular long-term government. But there is one thing history tells us voters dislike more than politicians making hollow pledges – and that is politicians who spring unpleasant surprises on them after they win office.

ARROGANCE ON SHOW

Jarrod Bleijie could well be the state’s deputy premier in three weeks’ time. He should therefore give Queenslanders the courtesy of seeing him face his opponent – and so accept The Courier-Mail’s invite to debate Treasurer Cameron Dick.

As readers are now well aware, we will have a cardboard cutout of Mr Bleijie on site for Mr Dick to debate. And while the back and forth between the two as a result has been all in good spirits, the reality is more serious; through his refusal to front up, Mr Bleijie is thumbing his nose at voters.

It is an arrogant approach to what should be a serious contest of ideas. It smacks of a party that is treating voters as mugs by simply assuming they are on track to win and so will avoid any risks along the way.

But it should not be like this. A basic expectation of all candidates in most democracies is that they will front up and debate their opponent.

It is in these settings that voters can see the candidates as they are – away from the stage-managed events of a campaign, where even “passers-by” are carefully vetted by professional advancers to cut risk.

Debates are where voters can see the candidates warts and all. By saying no, Mr Bleijie is simply being disrespectful to the political process.

Responsibility for election comment is taken by Chris Jones, corner of Mayne Rd & Campbell St, Bowen Hills, Qld 4006. Printed and published by NEWSQUEENSLAND (ACN 009 661 778). Contact details here

Originally published as Editorial: Will Crisafulli live to regret blurted-out promises?