Treasurer Jim Chalmers picked an appropriate audience for a warning about smug moral superiority. Whether those listening recognised themselves in the description is another matter of course.
During a federal parliamentary sitting week, with economic frustration feeding support for Pauline Hanson and One Nation, the Treasurer delivered the Bernie Fraser Oration on Tuesday night at an event hosted by the left-wing Australia Institute.
His message to (so-called) progressives was that scolding, mocking and talking down to Australians attracted to One Nation would achieve precious little.
It’s a welcome departure from assuming that anyone deserting the political mainstream must be stupid, sinister or both. Not that the mainstream sits where the political left like to think that it does.
But will those listening reconsider how they treat One Nation voters, or anyone else who has the temerity to disagree with them for that matter? More likely they’ll sagely nod along assuming that he means somebody else?
Self-awareness isn’t exactly a strong suit of many amongst that lot!
A speech delivered to precisely the sort of audience that could benefit from spending less time lecturing Australians from its left-wing perches might have sailed over their collective heads.
Nonetheless, Chalmers deserves credit for saying it. To their faces. Whether his own explanation passes the test he set is considerably less clear, however.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers delivered the Bernie Fraser Oration on Tuesday night at an event hosted by the left wing Australia Institute. Above, addresing a Labor campaign rally last year
His message to (so-called) progressives was that scolding, mocking and talking down to Australians attracted to One Nation would achieve precious little
Because having warned against condescension, the Treasurer proceeded to describe an electorate susceptible to nostalgia, feelings and the manipulations of online politics.
It doesn’t get much more condescending than that.
‘We have all the facts to push back on this,’ he said, ‘but facts don’t beat feelings. Feelings are as real as facts.’
There is a legitimate point there. Emotions have political consequences, any politician who ignores them deserves the electoral hiding that follows.
But did you notice who apparently possesses the facts and who is left clutching their feelings? The government understands, the voters need to do better. How terribly generous of the in-touch Treasurer preaching not being condescending.
For Australians struggling with mortgage repayments, rising bills or the costs of keeping a business afloat, dissatisfaction might be a rational assessment of their circumstances.
It’s factually how they feel, Jim.
They just might understand their household budget somewhat more than a Treasurer explaining why they should feel differently about it. And they might have concluded that the government bears some responsibility for the difficult situation they are in.
For Australians struggling with mortgage repayments, rising bills or the costs of keeping a business afloat, dissatisfaction might be a rational assessment of their circumstances
That possibility deserves more attention than it received in Chalmers’ lecture.
He had plenty to say about algorithms, the far right, nostalgia and uncertainty overseas.
Where was the corresponding examination of whether Labor’s own decisions have helped create the disillusionment it now wants to explain away as feelings?
Respecting voters means entertaining the possibility that their criticisms have merit. Even when they express them by supporting somebody you dislike.
Chalmers also presented Labor’s changes to negative gearing, capital gains and trusts as evidence that it was reforming the status quo in working people’s interests.
That is an argument to be demonstrated, not a conclusion secured by announcement and early stages implementation (albeit with numerous broken promises and backflips).
Voters are entitled to ask what those measures will ultimately deliver, when the benefits will finally arrive and whether they address the grievances pushing people towards Hanson. All the while with one eye on the unintended consequences also unfolding.
Meanwhile, Anthony Albanese was elsewhere in Canberra at the same time Chalmers was speaking, doing his usual fare: telling a business audience how responsive and dependable his government was, while taking personal credit for fixing a problem that had emerged on his watch.
Shameless.
Chalmers had plenty to say about algorithms, the far right, nostalgia and uncertainty overseas. But where was the corresponding examination of Labor’s own decisions
At an Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry event, the PM explained that a text from its chief executive prompted his intervention to extend credit card payments for business tax bills until the end of the financial year.
Apparently the system works splendidly as long as somebody has the PM’s mobile number. It’s actually evidence of dysfunction, and that Albo can’t see that, but instead sees it as good practice, says so much.
Nor does temporarily extending a payment option settle the underlying problem for businesses relying on it to manage cash flows.
A brief reprieve still leaves a looming deadline.
When that deadline arrives, business owners won’t be able to pay the taxman with Albo’s self-congratulations or Jim’s carefully calibrated sympathy.
And if voters take their frustrations to the ballot box, neither Albo nor Jim should need an Australia Institute lecture to understand why.
– READ MORE: Albo celebrating getting rid of card surcharges with a cutesy video. Now the law of unintended consequences (and pure incompetence) has bitten him and Jim Chalmers on the bum: PETER VAN ONSELEN
– READ MORE: Earth to Albo: Anika Wells has got to go. Diary revelation about ‘meeting’ at birthday party must – surely – be the final straw: PETER VAN ONSELEN
