Dr Jim Chalmers appeared to be more concerned with the next election than 2063 in his National Press Club response to the Intergenerational Report on Thursday.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The Treasurer made a valiant attempt to convince his auditors all was for the best in this best of all possible (and future) worlds.
It seems reasonable to predict, given his rather hubristic proclamation "we want to own the future - and that's what the Intergenerational Report is all about", that the next federal election isn't too far distant.
Dr Chalmers spent far more time plugging the Albanese government's achievements and policies than on explaining how it would create a resilient and flexible community able to adapt to an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world.
Few will care about recent Reserve Bank and Productivity Commission reforms 40 years from now - they'll just be a footnote in a rather dull textbook on economics.
That's also true of the competition review.
The Treasurer certainly didn't say anything to suggest the housing shortage would be a thing of the past or that cost of living pressures and poverty would have been eliminated by 2063.
The sub-text of his speech was that the government will continue to plod along its current rather cautious path.
There was no grand vision, no over-arching aspiration, and no serious consideration of tax reform or other initiatives that would reshape the country the way Whitlam tried to in 1972 and Hawke and Keating did in the 1990s.
That is arguably forgivable to a certain extent given much of the report was devoted to statements of the bleeding obvious.
Australians have been talking about the impact of ageing baby boomers since the mid-1960s. Climate change has also been kicked down the road for decades.
The connection between technological innovation and increased productivity? That's been known since classical times. It's also been an underlying assumption in all economic modelling since Watt invented the steam engine.
That said, the more specific the predictions are the more problematic they become.
Take for example the presumption we will transition from exporting massive quantities of gas and coal to lithium and other minerals used in renewables and EVs. Who's to say that in 20 years EVs will even be a thing? Given the interest in green hydrogen and the like this might just be a stop-gap technology.
The evolution of self-driving cars at a time when the population is getting older could also lead to a significant reduction in individual vehicle ownership.
Given he's the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers's biggest failure was in not addressing the suggestion this year's budget surplus could be the last in the next 40 years.
It's not enough to assume technology will provide answers to our problems. Governments have an obligation to plan beyond the end of their elected terms.
And what about the prediction that gross national debt will have reached 32.1 per cent of GDP by 2062-63?
Also worth scrutiny is the prospect that Australia will be able to cover an increase of 3.8 per cent of GDP in total government spending without a radical overhaul of the tax system; something neither LNP or Labor governments have been willing to countenance for almost 30 years.
Arguably the best commentary on both the report and Dr Chalmers's response was made by Evan Esar many years ago: "An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today".
Send us a letter to the editor
- Letters to the editor should be kept to 250 or fewer words. To the Point letters should not exceed 50 words. Reference to The Canberra Times reports should include a date and page number. Provide a phone number and address (only your suburb will be published). Responsibility for election comment is taken by John-Paul Moloney of 121 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra. Published by Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd.
