Anthony Albanese has had a lot to say about trust since taking over the Labor leadership.
A month before the 2022 election, the then-opposition leader said he was determined to “restore faith in politics by delivering on every single thing that I promise”.
And there was no promise more unequivocal than the one he made to follow through in full with the Coalition’s stage three tax cuts.
This was reform that Labor — with Mr Albanese as leader — voted to support.
While it was clear that Labor never much liked the package, Mr Albanese promised over and over and over he would not tinker with the tax cuts.
His support for stage three was no doubt partly responsible for high-earning West Australian voters in traditionally Liberal-held seats switching their allegiances, the result of which was to win him the prime ministership.
And once Mr Albanese received the keys to the Lodge, he continued to vow over and over there would be no changes.
Speaking to Seven Network political editor and The West Australian columnist Mark Riley just a few weeks after the election, he gave one of his many iron-clad promises to follow through in full.
“My word is my bond. I have always been a man of my word,” he insisted.
“I believe that when you go to an election and you make commitments you should stick to them.”
We could fill this editorial with all the times he made that promise. We won’t.
But the point is Mr Albanese has made his integrity his number one selling point. He wouldn’t be like those slippery Liberals, who flip-flopped on every policy depending on what the focus groups had to say that week. He was a conviction politician, someone who could be trusted to do what he said.
Even when it was clear it was doomed, he followed through with the damaging Voice referendum, the result of which shattered the hopes of many Indigenous people. He did so because he had made a promise, we were told.
It’s now clear that Mr Albanese is a politician who believes he can pick and choose which promises to keep.
He is banking on the hope that Australians will forgive this betrayal of trust because it means that most of them will end up with extra money in their pockets. The weight of numbers is in his favour — 14 million income tax paying Australian will be better off under this redesigned scheme, while about 1 million (who, crucially, were unlikely to vote Labor anyway) will be worse off.
As Mr Albanese rightly points out, we’re in a cost-of-living crisis, and it’s low and middle income earners who are doing it toughest. It’s difficult to argue against a policy which provides them with some relief, and many will struggle to muster up much sympathy for those on high incomes who will receive a smaller tax break than they were expecting.
To that, we would say yes, the tax relief on its way to high income earners was greater than that going to those in lower brackets. But that’s because they pay far more tax — not just in absolute terms, but also relative to their incomes. Fairness cuts both ways.
Mr Albanese has put his integrity on the line here. And even those who find themselves the beneficiaries of this change should ask the question which promises will be the next to go.
Responsibility for the editorial comment is taken by WAN Editor-in-Chief Anthony De Ceglie.