Why it's okay for politicians to change their minds.

Growing up, my wise mother gave me some sound advice that has stayed with me. ‘Give people the benefit of the doubt’, she said. We all want people to think well of us, and not ascribe ulterior motives to our behaviour.

In my twenties, my wise friend Hazel gave me some solid advice that has also remained.

‘Give people the grace to change’, she said.

We can all learn and grow, and it’s not fair to keep people boxed into expectations based on our experience of them years previously. Be wary if necessary, but try and be open to them having changed and evolved.

In my thirties, my wise husband gave me some equally useful advice.

‘Give people the opportunity to speak for themselves, if they want to’, he said.

‘And whatever the case, don’t assume what’s in their head.’

We can easily make the mistake of not providing an opportunity for dialogue, which often reveals the real reasons that underlie particular behaviours. Reasons and motivations may be significantly different to what we assume.

I recalled these various pieces of wisdom a few times in the last few years. There was the brouhaha over Julia Gillard’s ex-boyfriend’s misuse of a fund she had created as a lawyer in the 1990s. There was the issue of then opposition leader Tony Abbott’s reported behaviour in the 1970s. There was a policy back flip by Labor Immigration Minister Chris Bowen. More recently, scrutiny of Joe Hockey’s former advocacy of free university education has loomed large.

Although these issues will continue to be analysed, I don’t think I am alone in questioning the relevance of these events to contemporary Australian policy. Sometimes we like to believe we can infer all sorts of things about Gillard’s, Abbott’s or Hockey’s approach to political life, likely policy leadership or activity. Yet when viewed dispassionately, whatever happened occurred decades ago.

In a political context, Malcolm Fraser led the country when Tony Abbott was at Uni; Paul Keating was in power when Julia Gillard worked as a lawyer; and Bob Hawke was Prime Minister when Hockey protested student fees.

It all seems like ancient history to me, and I’d rather hear about plans and policies for today and for the future rather than reports of yesteryears. Can’t we collectively admit that the inferences drawn by some may not be quite as cut and dried as they would have us believe? Can’t we recognise that politicians’ judgement may have improved in the decades since? Can’t we collectively agree that political rage may have mellowed with age? Can’t we collectively accept politicians’ admissions of error, and applaud (or critique) the values they articulate and demonstrate now? And can’t we admit that politicians, including Joe Hockey, are allowed to change their mind? I don’t think there are many of us who would not be embarrassed or contradicted by our previous actions if others dug around in our twenty-something pasts.

And I don’t think I am the only one who would prefer the argy-bargy of politics to focus on issues of policy rather than on the past. Giving politicians the grace to change would be constructive in this regard as well. I personally think it’s gutsy when politicians are able to state that they made an error of judgement and took corrective action, or if they changed course to achieve a policy outcome. To be frank, Joe Hockey’s explanation that ‘in your 20s you complain, and in your 40s you explain’ resonates with me.

Australians are free to dislike the Coalition’s cuts to public spending, their ungenerous approach to asylum seekers, their undermining of university education, and their ties to extremists in the National Party. Likewise, citizens are free to dislike the Labor Party for their cuts to public spending, their ungenerous approach to asylum seekers, their introduction of a carbon price, and their ties to extremists in the Greens. But don’t criticise a party solely based on personality, or informed by things that happened twenty or thirty years ago.

And when it comes to public discourse, why not give politicians the benefit of the doubt? Offer them the courtesy to personally change or to change policy course if necessary, and the opportunity to speak for themselves and make statements on these matters if they so choose.

Dr Moira Byrne is a writer, political scientist and policy analyst. She wishes she had more wisdom of her own to offer. Disclosure: she has a friendship with a staffer of Treasurer Hockey.

Do you think politicians should be able to change their mind?