This is part one in a series on Treasurer Dr Jim Chalmers.
Dr Jim Chalmers is Australia’s 41st Treasurer. The Queenslander is the first Labor treasurer since Chris Bowen left office in 2013, and the burden on him is great. He must guard Australia’s economy through a period of extremes — he must fight extreme high inflation, protect and extend the nation’s low unemployment rate and navigate expected rises in interest rates.
But thanks to the sparse and spartan Labor election platform we know little of Dr Chalmer’s plans or intentions. There will be a jobs summit and an October budget, yes, but what will be in them? Who is Dr Chalmers? What are his ideals? Is he the man for the hour or will he fall flat?
To answer these questions and find the essence of the man, I have scoured the record in a series of articles that will comb his publications and history. The first two pieces go back to 2013 and explore Chalmers through the lens of his first book: Glory Daze: How a World-beating Nation Got So Down on Itself. It is the story of his time in Wayne Swan’s office during the global financial crisis (GFC).
Oftentimes in the making of a man a short intense period matters more than other, much longer stretches. There is no doubt the six years Chalmers spent in the heart of government during the GFC, including three as chief of staff to then treasurer Swan, matter most to the treasurer he will be. They are more formative than the years before, such as when he worked in the bureaucracy and gained a PhD in politics at ANU; or the nine years since, when he won the fairly safe seat of Rankin on the suburban fringes of Brisbane and became a member of federal Parliament.
The book gives us ideas about what he will focus on, how he will react, where he might be on the right track and, most importantly, where he may go wrong.
First, we will look at what Chalmers is showing us. In the next piece, we will look at what else he may reveal.
What he shows us
Glory Daze sets out to tell the story of how Wayne Swan saved Australia from the GFC. Chalmers’ key observation is this: despite the government saving the Australian people from economic oblivion, we weren’t happy and did not give credit to the policies that saved us. Hence the subtitle of the book, How a World-beating Nation Got So Down on Itself.
“What worried me most was that we had been a very successful government, achieving in the economic sphere what almost no other developed country on Earth could achieve and yet we were not lauded for it,” Chalmers writes.
His explanations for why revolve around the press.
“Hyperpartisan attacks by the opposition, shouted into the echo chamber of an increasingly skewed media landscape, make rational discussion of policy and the good that government can do practically impossible.”
I’d apparently repressed memories of the media environment of 2010-13, but his book brought them back vividly. The Labor government of Julia Gillard was hounded relentlessly, with the Murdoch press setting the tone and other media unable to prevent themselves from echoing it.
The legitimacy of the government was questioned in three key ways: 1) Gillard having rolled Kevin Rudd, and him lurking and leaking; 2) being a minority government; 3) Gillard being the first female prime minister. (Don’t forget that even the ABC ran a “comedy” series about a female PM, entitled At Home with Julia. Subterranean misogyny imbued almost every analysis of the government.) Tony Abbott was ascendant and the media landscape was vile.
That negativity shapes the book, written in the immediate aftermath of Rudd rolling Gillard in 2013. Chalmers is furious the government got no credit — and fair enough. He attempts to link the lack of credit given in the press to an inability to achieve further economic reform. Does he prove it, though? It is a plausible idea, certainly one that could help explain the failure of the mining tax. But it’s one that sits oddly with the successful introduction of a carbon tax by the Gillard government, and the numerous other achievements of her government.
The lack of credit apportioned to Labor by a furious press certainly helps explain electoral results. It is why Gillard was rolled in 2013 and is why Abbott won later that year, but the extent to which it explains a lack of policy triumph during the term is another question. “It’s amazing what you can achieve if you don’t mind who gets the credit,” goes the popular saying.
If the lack of credit in the press shapes the ability of a government to reform while on the benches — and I don’t think he proved that — then it should be a key issue to address for Chalmers and indeed the whole Albanese government. Chalmers identifies an incentive of the press in 2013 as amplifying “the least constructive contributions to the public conversation”. The question is: have those incentives changed, or has Labor learned how to work inside them?
Reading the press
Let’s consider the quote above, about how rational discussion of policy and the good government can do are practically impossible, and then recall the barren landscape of Labor’s policy agenda that delivered them such electoral success. We begin to suspect the grim truth is that Labor has learned, under Albanese, to work inside the incentives of the media landscape, rather than how to change those incentives.
If so, then the upcoming jobs summit will unleash a torrent of negativity, and the ideas raised will be examined in the popular press in a cursory and tabloid fashion. Objections from sectoral interests will get prominence in the serious press, some dumb thing or gaffe will obsess the tabloid press, Twitter will in turn be obsessed with the absurdly overwrought commentary of one or two right-wing talking heads, and almost nobody will talk about the ideas. The government will be derided for running an empty “gab-fest”.
The one hope for Chalmers is he was wrong about whether getting credit is vital to making change. And also wrong about the reasons Gillard’s government got such bad press. Maybe it’s not just Labor ideas the right-wing media can hate but minority governments and female PMs. If so, the jobs summit could be useful even amid a short, loud barrage of negative press and derision. Surely pursuing full employment is a goal that will be harder to hate than bringing in a tax on carbon or mining. At any rate, the policy process can go on for years — it lasts longer than the attention span of the haters.
And there are promising signs from the new Treasurer that he knows the power of starting a slow process and sharing credit. In a speech in April he said the following: “We should be prepared to embark on new initiatives knowing we may not be around to take credit for their success … That’s the approach I want to take as Treasurer.”
It is unlikely there will be laudatory articles about how Albanese and Chalmers are the new Hawke and Keating, but there might still be policy traction if he negotiates with the new Senate. Chalmers could yet be able to change Australia from his position inside the Treasurer’s office. He just might have to give up minding who gets the credit.
“He attempts to link the lack of credit given in the press to an inability to achieve further economic reform. Does he prove it, though? It is a plausible idea, certainly one that could help explain the failure of the mining tax. But it’s one that sits oddly with the successful introduction of a carbon tax by the Gillard government, and the numerous other achievements of her government.”
I’m with Chalmers on this one. There is no contradiction at all in the carbon price (not a tax) getting through and Chalmer’s overall observation about the paralysis of economic reform. The carbon price is a clear example of an exception that proves the rule. It was finally passed in a weakened form in the face of ferocious opposition and relentless criticism from the industry and the media at great cost to the government which could not afford to get into another such fight. Labor did not get the credit it deserved (and Abbot’s opposition did not get the blame) from the electorate for what it had done and lost the next election. The carbon price was then scrapped by Abbott, and this did not appear to hurt the Coalition or produce any reaction helpful to Labor. The “numerous other achievements” of the Gillard government are not relevant to the discussion of economic reform except when they are economic reforms. The lesson to be drawn from the carbon price is that economic reform is extremely difficult, will not bring any credit to the reformer (in time for the next election anyway) and can be used to destroy Labor’s reputation both when it’s in government and in opposition.
It could be a different story if the bulk of Australian media was run according to decent journalistic principles of objective reporting, instead of a highly partisan propaganda tool for vested interests which relentlessly attacks its perceived enemies, but that’s the world our politicians live in.
Yeah, I think there’s a clear case to be made that it’s not so much about credit for the sake of credit, as it’s about credit providing public support for keeping those reforms in place. If the Gillard government hadn’t been ultimately treated as illegitimate then it would have been far harder for Abbott and friends to repeal their carbon price; likewise, if Rudd’s government had actually been given credit for their achievements during the GFC they would have had political capital which would have allowed them to stay more focused and less frenetic in the GFC recovery phase and possibly even get their original CPRS up (though given Rudd’s management failings it’s hard to know).
Credit in politics isn’t simply a matter of feeling good about yourself, it’s a vital ingredient in building and managing political capital, which is ultimately what you need to build lasting change.
The time has come for Albo and Co to grow a pair and tackle the media head on. First, a Royal Commission into media ownership concentration, then swingeing legislation to strip the murdoch organisation of its newspapers (both metro _and_ regional) in Australia, force the Ch 9 group to divest themselves of the ex Fairfax papers. As Paul Keating said long ago, they can be princes of print or queens of screen but not both…The cancer of total MSM monopoly has to be excised.
as an afterthought, cancel foxtel/sky’s cable monopoly and deport the Sky After Dark crowd to Nauru…
Sounds good, but there are plenty of potential buyers of Murdoch’s and Nine’s papers who wouldn’t be any less Liberal-supporting than the incumbents. I think the RC could be more important as it just might have the ability to force some improvement in overall fairness and journalistic standards. Mind you, after the almost total failure of the Banking RC to change anything – after Scovo and Joshy’s surreptitious stripping away and sand-papering job – I haven’t got my hopes high.
Came here to express hope for RC into the media especially after Rudd’s petition gaining over half a million signatures. I well remember the savaging of Julia Gillard in the Australian day after day, it was relentless and awful. It was also the time I quit my subscription for good.
Watch the UK’s Sky News since it was stripped from Murdoch after the phone hacking scandal. It’s like entering an alternate universe. If it bleeds you can kill it. Just do it Labor!
Gerb, we already know what the issues are with the concentration of the media – tackle it head on by working with the Senate and legislate to divest as there’s no need to waste time, resources and our money on another pointless Royal Commission.
Which they helped create by giving Murdoch what he wanted at every turn.
Has it ever been otherwise for Australia’s press? I was a young voter in the early 60’s and I recall, the day before commentary was closed for a federal election, the Daily Telegraph (then Packer) ran a two page feature with photos of ALP and union figures under the heading: “These Men are Communists” The article implied that a vote for Labor was a vote for the Soviet Union. I believe they printed several retractions and apologies, under threat of legal action, but the damage was done and Menzies romped in for another period of useless government. Even now, Albo is not getting any credit for winning against a universally hostile mainstream media, just confirming Chalmers’ point.
It sounds like if we want to have good policy, the government has to do a surgical strike on the Murdoch press. Why not ban foreigners (including anyone who has renounced Australian citizenship) from owning media interests? The LNP have no scruples about tilting the media landscape to suit themselves.
hear, hear!
Talking about the Press we have already got a taste of things to come from the Tips & Murmurs of yesterday i.e The unAustralian’s Albo out of hiding/ comparison of interest rate rises (under Morrison a picture of Philip Lowe/ under Albo an unflattering picture of Jim Chalmers).
Lacklustre criticism instead of well rounded analysis. The press has jumped on the anti, anti, anti (which is probably nihilistic/and I am so sick of it)bandwagon.
The Morrison government saw peak nihilism which seems to have left an indelible stain.
How can we expect the world to change, which it has to if we’re going to hello, hello survive, if we are still in a negativity rut.
That’s why I stopped subscribing to the Age, and why I find reading actual real information like science more helpful.
We got rid of grandiose and out of touch Josh resoundingly. That’s a hell of a good start.
And the hints of nasty surprises in the economy Chalmers is alluding to, I totally believe him.
Can the press stop the who is, we don’t know who they are iterations, it’s primary school stuff.
We have a right leaning Labor treasurer that’s been in the job two and a bit weeks.
He is dealing with an unprecedented crisis. Give him a break.
Most narcissistic social media profiles are fake anyway.
Getting credit for something is not about getting a pat on the back.
Its about ensuring that the population at large is aware of what has been done, and how the country, and people themselves, are better if because of it.