Are broken promises all bad?

 The Broken Promise Paradigm

I’m not going to promise you anything, but I promise you that broken promises are not going obsolete. Over the last three terms of government, the broken promise has been a central part of their political disposition – whether they (the offenders) believe it or not. 

The broken promise as a tokenistic centre piece of political point scoring from oppositions is certainly not limited to the last three terms of government – it has coexisted with the Australian political sphere since federation. Democracy itself fosters broken promises, with politicians saying whatever they need to, to win over the votes of the populace, then reverting back to ideological viewpoints once in government.

The last three governments, which consisted of: Rudd, Gillard, Rudd and now Abbott –have seen a paradigm shift in the public’s perception of a broken promise. The public now perceives it as ‘the norm’, and accept politicians for the liars they are termed to be. Of course, not all politicians lie to get into office, but those who do allow for these generalisations to generate.

The political headway that Oppositions once received after a broken pre-election promise was called for what it was – has however become obsolete. In polling conducted after the Federal Budget, it wasn’t the broken promises that cost the Abbott government desperate points, it was the widespread affect the budget had, and the so called ‘shared pain’ as Treasurer Joe Hockey has repeatedly described it.

Previous to this ‘budget of lies and deceit’ that Labor has prefixed to all Question Time utterances since the 13 May delivery of the Liberal Economic Plan, Labor too was guilty of the broken promise. In the 2010 election campaign, Prime Minister Gillard decreed that ‘there will be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead’, yet it developed into Labor’s signature climate change policy.

Since no one is immune from the scourge of broken promises and public deception, do we as a nation not hold the government to account? The answer to that I would hope is self- evident, but there are two interestingly different sides to this argument.

Firstly, of course we as the voters, the taxpayers and the broader Australian public have the intrinsic role, in the form of democracy, to hold the government to account. We need to ensure that political parties, no matter their origin, develop sensible policy and explain it to us before we vote. We cannot become complacent and allow the broken promise to become the accepted norm, and just hope for the best. The political framework of Australia isn’t metaphorically comparable the good old family board game, where you hope no once is cheating, and lay faith in their morality. Because we all know that the moral compass is easily skewed when power and influence is at play, and the prosperity of a future Australia isn’t worth the risk.

On the other hand, it is inevitable that people (who funnily enough comprise the parties we vote for) have the tendency, to not only change their mind, but change their standpoint. It’s human nature. And if these changes are for the benefit of everyone and this nation as a whole – why should we oppose this?

Of course, significant policy changes on big issues allow parties to be termed as inconsistent and superficial. Sure, this is entirely possible. New parties such as Palmer United are the perfect example of this. Within a week of their new senators taking up the role in the upper house, Palmer has provided dichotomous points of view on everything from the Carbon Tax Repeal to the Freedom of Financial Advice laws. I think we can safely assume that Palmer United doesn’t know where it stands, and breaks promises based on naivety and lack of understanding – fitting this category perfectly.

However, the big political back flips that were formed by the Labor and Liberal parties was not one of political stupidity, rather, they were considered decisions for the benefit of Australia as they respectively saw fit. Labor decided, with the coaxing of the Australian Greens, that a Carbon Tax and later Emissions Trading Scheme was the right way to tackle and force Australians to consider the issue. In much the same manner, and in more recent political times, the Abbott government’s decision to cut funding in areas of government that had previously been cordoned off, amounts to their way of tackling a debt they see as a detriment to future prosperity.

It is inevitable that broken promises will remain a part of the Australian political demographic, however they are not all evil moves that oppositions like to make out for political point scoring reasons. As sensible voters, we have the responsibility to judge broken promises for what they are. We must not become complacent and accept them as the norm, or let them become obsolete. They are a part of the democracy we work and live in, we need to accept that, and continue to campaign for a better Australia, not continue to look back and play politics. 

It is sensible and responsible policy, not politics, which will move us forward. It is the youth of Australia, whose voices will be that of adults of tomorrow that will drive us forward. That, is something I can promise.