Who would want to be Jim Chalmers right now?

Opinion

October 29, 2026 — 5:00am

Who would want to be Jim Chalmers right now? Even Chalmers, possessed of a near-preternatural ability to control himself in public settings, from time to time finds it difficult to mask his frustration. He recites his statistics in interviews and in the parliament, pointing to the inflationary effect of America’s ill-chosen seemingly forever war on Iran. He respects the independence of the Reserve Bank. And questions from gotcha-seeking interviewers. And the views of private sector economists in the cheap seats. And the heroes in the caucus and in other ministries who anonymously backbite and question his performance.

Here are some of Chalmers’ relevant statistics. Oil prices have increased by more than 55 per cent since the Iran war began eight months ago. Inflation in Australia is 4.3 per cent, which is also the OECD and G20 average. Almost half of the September inflation rise was caused by higher petrol prices. Average unemployment in the OECD is 5 per cent, 4.8 per cent in the G20 and 4.7 per cent in Australia. Consumer confidence in Australia is in line with the OECD average.

Australia’s growth rate is slightly lower than America’s and higher than in the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Australia is one of just nine countries with AAA credit ratings from all major credit ratings agencies. Our top five trading partners are not on that list. Australia’s debt to GDP ratio is well below such countries as Germany, the UK and France. America’s is lower, but America has no public health, disability, childcare or aged care schemes to speak of. In other words, we have problems, but the rest of the world does too.

None of that appears to mean much to a lot of people who fill the public space talking about politics and the economy or to most voters. It’s true that Chalmers’ past two budgets were loose and began a series of deficits, which the government is already coming to regret. On Wednesday, Chalmers accepted the government’s role in contributing to inflation via its spending levels and promised a savings package in the December budget update.

But even beyond those concerns, this is not a good time to be the federal treasurer. The government is halfway through its fifth year. It’s the point when a government’s story starts to get old, when most voters start to tire of the main players and public irascibility takes over. Speculation about the leader’s future and the possible replacements kicks in at this point. It’s the normal run of things. But throw in 16 interest rate rises since Labor came to power and another one likely next week, elevated inflation and absurdly inflated housing prices that have driven too many households to the brink, and you have a government sliding towards serious trouble.

Anthony Albanese is increasingly unpopular with voters, the polls suggest, but it’s Chalmers, who spent years writing a doctoral thesis about the Labor Party’s greatest treasurer, Paul Keating, and studiously prepared himself for the same role, who’s in the gun.

Chalmers is the standout political talent on the government frontbench. The other possible contenders to replace Albanese are Tony Burke, Tanya Plibersek and Albanese’s favourite, Mark Butler. Jockeying is already under way. But Chalmers can’t afford to be overt about it, lest he upset the boss.

The government cannot afford to go on in the manner established by Albanese because the architecture of the contest that benefited him since 2019 has changed in the past 12 months from two-sided to three-sided. Patiently reciting facts into a gale is a waste of energy.

Halfway through the government’s second term, how many ordinary Australians could identify what its big defining goals are? Childcare was given star billing by Albanese around the time of last year’s election, but that’s faded away. Right now, it’s AI and the digital duty of care. They’re vital issues, but at heart they’re about repair and imposing constraints. Can they actually work, change living standards, make people feel more secure economically or – dare it be suggested – more hopeful?

Chalmers is trapped by Albanese’s standard operating procedure. There are fundamental generational inequities in our economy that disadvantage the young. A Labor government should be addressing them more aggressively through the tax system, ideally through tax indexation for lower wage earners, as former ACTU chief Bill Kelty proposes. A commitment to greater equity was what led Chalmers to persuade Albanese to agree to a rejigging of the stage 3 tax cuts in 2023. Chalmers and Albanese work well enough together, but there’s a limit to how far the prime minister is willing to be pushed off his usual line.

That looms as a problem. Basically, the government needs to move beyond its defensive stance on economic policy and create new future-focused policies, giving it and the public something new to grab on to. Five months ago, the unstated plan was to unveil substantial income tax changes in 2028 just before the election. The time to do that work and advocate for it, giving the public some hope, is now. The only way forward is to take greater risks. Chalmers and Albanese set the example for themselves with the budget’s capital gains tax and negative gearing changes, designed chiefly to remove the worst excesses of the broken property market. The policies continue to attract heat and parts remain legislatively contentious, but they are starting to work.

It could be that it’s too late for the government to open up an honest conversation with the public about how distorted and unfair our economic settings are and how much needs to be done to make things right. After all, the government is deep into its incumbency. People will rightly ask why more hasn’t been done about it already. And Albanese’s public standing is not robust.

But it’s hard to see that there’s a choice. In this environment of rage and complaint, vested interests, the usual members of the peanut gallery and even Johnny who lives around the corner can be expected to complain that the government is either doing too much or too little anyway. Surely, it’s better to try to do some of the hard things before it’s too late. Otherwise, what’s been the point?

Shaun Carney is a regular columnist, an author and former associate editor of The Age.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.

From our partners