Jim Chalmers, the Australian Treasurer, has urged the press gallery to avoid the conventional “rule in; rule out” policy game as the government prepares for a significant economic roundtable meeting. Originally announced in June, this three-day cabinet-room convening is designed to spark new thinking and develop a deeper sense of urgency necessary to drive political change. Chalmers reiterated that the government’s top priority continued to be providing on what it had promised voters during the May elections.
Chalmers is adamant that the roundtable’s not intended to deliver a G20-style formal communique. This position exposes a big change in political playbook. He said that the summit would focus on getting things done, not sticking to old school political playbooks. This move comes at a time when the discussion in public and the crass economic discourse around policies have turned very sharply against pro-growth stuff.
The then-Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who was in office at the time the meeting was convened, drove this message home. She concluded that good governance goes deeper than social media. Substantial conversation “You cannot run the country by tweet,” she said, emphasizing the importance of a deep and nuanced personal discourse in favor of pandering bling.
The Focus of the Economic Roundtable
The invitation-only economic roundtable meeting is meant to encourage honest conversation and innovative thinking among the region’s most influential political leaders. This new platform would provide the perfect opportunity for cabinet members to do just that—brainstorm creative economic strategies. Then they can further develop these concepts for possible future government acquisition or use. Chalmers articulated that the roundtable’s intention is to gather innovative ideas that could lead to tangible outcomes for the Australian economy.
The timing of the meeting coincides with a proposal by the Productivity Commission for a cashflow tax, which has received immediate backlash from various political factions. The idea was met with skepticism and was quickly dismissed despite being lauded by some, including Andrew Fraser, a former Queensland Labor Treasurer. He credited the Productivity Commission with “courage and imagination” for proposing such a bold progressive tax reform.
Chalmers stressed that conversations at the roundtable would not be focused on advocating for changes in taxes. Never mind the fact that the Prime Minister has said repeatedly and emphatically that there will not be any changes to tax policies before the next election. This position seems to be in concert with a larger strategy to dig in for the coming electoral fights while facing down national economic pressures.
The Political Landscape and Defence Spending
This roundtable is timely indeed, not least given the increasing external pressure on Australia to lift its defence spending. Recent media reports that the US has pressured Australia to quadruple its defense spending should send shudders through Canberra. Australia should increase it to about $100 billion per year, they argue. This request would further complicate a delicate economic situation for the Australian government.
Gillard to ensure that the true policy debate is elevated above all else. She’s made her mark on governance first, prioritizing proactive communication over knee-jerk social media response. “So how much do you think the defense budget should be at,” she opened with. Her question highlighted the urgent need for a serious public debate on such consequential matters.
The setting of this economic roundtable is a kind of commentary on Australia’s recent leadership angst. In 2009 that opportunity was given to Joe Hockey “on a plate.” Especially in recent times, he has provoked discussions on policy – particularly the case against emissions trading schemes (ETS). He championed civility and a more constructive approach to the policy debate, encouraging his colleagues to focus their debate more effectively on the issues that matter most.
Challenges in Public Discourse
Given the current discourse surrounding economic policies—a discourse that’s drawn widespread critique for being overloaded with procedural debates rather than substantive issues—Andrew Fraser warned that a coalition of the unwilling would be formed faster than you could say implementation. Further, he argued that this response was emblematic of the broader malaise infecting our public discourse. He lamented that the discussion has gotten off course from the real crux of the matter. Rather, it has tried to micromanage the substance of the talks.
Chalmers recognized this challenge and stressed the importance of redirecting discussions towards actionable ideas that directly impact Australians. His attempt to foster a more productive discussion indicates that even political leaders are increasingly coming around. They think it’s high time to make substance outweigh form.
