Labor leaders guilty of super-sized hypocrisy over broken promises

They knew exactly what they were doing: win the election via Graham Richardson’s ‘whatever it takes’ before switching gears.

Prime Minister of Australia Anthony Albanese made his first address of the year to the National Press Club of Australia, in Canberra on February 22. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

Over-promising and underdelivering is a well-worn phrase. It’s also a well-worn practice in politics and life. Yet it doesn’t entirely encapsulate the way Labor is sliding around on superannuation this week, as unedifying as it has been. But it comes close.

Let’s be clear about one thing: Anthony Albanese’s strongest attack on Scott Morrison ahead of the last election was that the former prime minister was loose with the truth. Bushfires, vaccines, parliamentary standards and most other issues the former PM touched on stand as evidence.

Yet here we are, edging ever closer to 12 months since the election, and it is the Albanese government that’s being forced to defend itself against accusations it said one thing ahead of the election before doing the exact opposite afterwards.

And let me be very clear when comparing Morrison and Albanese, they are chalk and cheese. One man is someone I respect, the other is Scott Morrison. But that doesn’t mean Albanese is beyond reproach. He’s not, and so far the way his government is conducting this super debate is deplorable.

The way Jim Chalmers is being enabled to run free of election commitments is appalling.

The Western world wonders why its citizens are losing faith in democracy. Like the Black Knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, the Treasurer continues to fight the good fight, attacking the Coalition for doing exactly what he’s doing now, as his arms and legs are removed.

With the Labor government making it abundantly clear it certainly is going back on its election commitment not to reform superannuation, Chalmers claimed the Coalition calling out this fact was simply “more of the same hypocritical hyperventilating from the same party that jacked up taxes on super when they were in government”. As though two wrongs really do make a right

That is exactly what the Coalition did, it broke a promise, which Chalmers and others condemned at the time. However, when the shoe is on the other foot, and promises are again being broken, hypocrisy is meant to be acceptable.

It was Chalmers who said in March last year, shortly before the May election, “Australians shouldn’t expect major changes to superannuation if the government changes hands.”

After that interview on ABC Insiders, one of Chalmers’ offsiders commented that he might have overreached with the pledge. Fear not, use of the word “major” left wiggle room, the all-too-altruistic adviser was reassured.

In case you’re thinking the intervening two months ahead of polling day caused a change of heart before voters cast their ballots, here is what the man who is now Prime Minister had to say on super in the very same month as election day: Albanese claimed Labor had “no intention of making any super changes” if it won the election.

Ruling out any changes whatsoever was even stronger than Chalmers’ use of the phrase “no major changes”.

I was told that when Albanese made that comment Chalmers visibly winced, in the full knowledge his word salad had been defined down by his boss into words Labor couldn’t obfuscate.

Fast-forward to now, and claims by the new government that it isn’t breaking an election pledge are beyond hollow. Attacks on the opposition for having done the same are a race to the bottom. Who else is sick of this?

As we bear witness to new policy reveal after new policy reveal under the Albanese government, the following quote is a favourite I keep coming back to: “One of the things we’re doing in this campaign is we’re making all of our policies clear … we’re putting them out there for all to see.”

That was Albanese during the election campaign. When he said that, Bill Shorten – who lost the 2019 election because he actually did that – coughed into his morning cereal. The pair aren’t the closest of friends.

Here is the rub: politicians need to be allowed to change their minds. As John Maynard Keynes once said: “When the facts change I change my mind, what do you do?” Facts change, we can’t expect the political class to be held accountable for a full three-year electoral cycle for breaking pledges that quickly become redundant.

The problem with the promises currently being broken isn’t that facts have changed. They were dumb commitments to begin with. Dumb in terms of public policy thinking.

Politically they were clever because they shut down potential scare campaigns. But that also makes the broken promises more flagrant, more calculated, more conniving.

These guys knew exactly what they were doing: win the election deploying Graham Richardson’s approach of “whatever it takes” before switching gears. In politics lying has become an art rather than a sin. Labor has been out of power 20 of the past 26 years. Of course it wants to do things differently. And when it comes to super it’s damn obvious reforms are needed.

We are an ageing population. There are 10,000 Australians with super holdings above $5m paying no tax on the earnings of the first $1.7m and only 15 per cent tax on all earnings above that. There’s no fairness in that.

But the super system also needs to be reformed to make it easier to put more money into accounts with little or no tax for younger Australians. And for women who miss out on super when out of work having children. These are important reforms too. Which is why ruling out any changes before the election was a poor policy move by Labor.

While everyone isn’t a fan of compulsory super, I certainly am. It’s ensured I’ll have a financially comfortable retirement. Forced savings help prevent lifestyle spending along the way. Paul Keating did a great many good things, especially the economic reforms he instituted as treasurer. But bringing in compulsory super is right up there.

That said, for a new Labor Treasurer – one who did his PhD on Keating’s leadership successes, no less – to follow up such great policy achievements with the intention to legislate the savings purpose of super is an underwhelming sequel. Why does superannuation also need a voice to parliament?

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