Indigenous voice referendum excuse ties Anthony Albanese to stage three tax cuts

Anthony Albanese says he needed to hold a referendum on the voice to keep faith with his election commitments. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Anthony Albanese’s claim he could not cancel or delay the doomed voice referendum because it was an election commitment is disingenuous and leaves his government with no wriggle room to amend tax and spending policies based on changed economic circumstances.

Since the disastrous referendum result, which has put back the cause of constitutional recognition for at least a generation, senior ministers have conceded they knew the polls were bad and it became difficult to win the referendum without bipartisan support.

But the government went ahead with the vote anyway – Kamikaze style – because the Prime Minister is a man of “conviction” who needed to follow through with his election promise.

This was the same government that floated dumping its iron-clad commitment to stage-three tax cuts ahead of Jim Chalmers’ first budget because the economic outlook had deteriorated in the months after the election.

Mr Albanese said on Friday that he was aware the polling was foreshadowing a thumping defeat for the Yes vote. He chose to hold the referendum anyway because “I’m the Prime Minister that will promise to do things and then go and do them”.

“I think that’s how you restore faith in politics,” he said.

Based on this logic the government cannot waver from any of its election commitments in this term, making it nearly impossible for the Treasurer to use the veil of a slowing economy to pursue tax reforms that would reduce the structural budget deficit.

The government has already been accused of breaking promises in proposing higher taxes for gas exporters and people with superannuation balances above $3m.

There were options for Albanese to keep faith with his commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart without going to a referendum this term. After all, he was careful during the election campaign in saying a first-term referendum was his “intention”.

Once the Coalition formed a united position against the voice, Mr Albanese could have delayed the referendum until there was bipartisan support and established the body through legislation while also progressing with the Makarrata commission.

This would have disappointed some key Indigenous leaders but the result would have been far better for their cause than what occurred last Saturday.