Are Jim Chalmers’s denials on negative gearing changes a precursor to what comes next?

Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Jim Chalmers all but confirmed on Monday that Labor will make changes to negative gearing when he categorically ruled out doing so. That’s what his word is worth these days.

Given that the PM and Treasurer repeatedly pledged not to amend stage three income tax cuts before announcing plans to do so, including before the last election, what other conclusion are voters supposed to come to now when they make similar promises not to amend negative gearing? Or any other promises for that matter. As Mark Twain once said: actions speak louder than words, but not nearly as often.

Chalmers even used the same rhetoric when ruling out negative gearing changes, telling assembled journalists in Canberra “we haven’t changed our view”. On 10 May last year when asked if he would consider amending the stage three tax cuts the Treasurer also said: “we haven’t changed our view”. Eight months later he did, assuming you are naive enough to believe that wasn’t the plan all along.

Voters can even agree with the policy decision to break the promise but still recognise the untrustworthiness of doing so. However much Labor wants to cast its broken promise on tax as a virtuous backflip, it lampoons the truthfulness of other pledges it now makes.

This is always the problem with misleading the public: future commitments become all but worthless. Anything ruled out may not in fact be off the table, no matter how many times pledges get made. Repetition doesn’t restore reputation. Expect the Opposition to hammer home this point between now and the next election. The line of attack should be especially damaging for Anthony Albanese’s government because he campaigned at the last election on the theme of restoring integrity in politics.

In Shakespeare’s play Hamlet the phrase “the lady doth protest too much, methinks” is used to question sincerity. Voters will rightly question the sincerity of this government’s commitments when ruling anything in or out in the future.

The Treasurer’s denials on negative gearing changes are in fact a precursor to what really comes next, writes Peter van Onselen. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Australians can rightly therefore query whether the Treasurer’s denials on negative gearing changes are in fact a precursor to what really comes next, when it becomes convenient to break the pledge. For example, after the next election, if it first gets away with having broken the stage three promise. We know it wanted to reform negative gearing ahead of the 2019 election, but learnt the lesson that announcing it openly and honestly risked political failure. Jim Chalmers was the shadow finance spokesman at the time.

Simply put, ruling out changes to negative gearing is now a promise not to be trusted, courtesy of the government’s past deceit.

Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics and public policy at the University of Western Australia.