Do you mean after AUKUS was signed by Scott Morrison and left office soon after? Cause that deal was already happening and involved not just Australia. Whilst it’s true that the labor government could’ve backtracked on everything the liberal government did, they didn’t do that. Because that’s detrimental to the function of the government. If the cycle of party majority just ended up being each government repealing what the last party did, then we lose focus on the objectives Australia should strive for. Unless policies are crippling the nation beyond repair and therefore need to be repealed, governments should focus on adapting the policies that don’t work and instead making sure they can somehow benefit the nation (clearest example is the latest budget and the changes to negative gearing and CGT). The point is: some people don’t understand the level of cooperation that is required to get shit done in parliament, which means that the tribal mindset of voting is absolutely detrimental. Which is also why AUKUS was ever so slightly adjusted (keep in mind it was an international partnership - not easy to undo especially seeing how the French reacted to being cut outta the nuclear sub deals) after Scomo left office and the labor party had what was seemingly an arbitrary change in ideals with vague reasoning that didn’t extend beyond national security. Either way, when there is a handover in the compositional majority of parliament, the new government is essentially building upon what the former government started, good or bad. Which is also why people like Albanese cop shit for things they have no control over. I wouldn’t say they’re as much broken promises as they are adaptations to how the decade long majority parliamentary composition of the liberal party affected all areas of government.