Chalmers’ oration an exercise in political hyperbole

Jim Chalmers says Peter Dutton is dangerous, a dog-whistler and divisive. That’s the sort of political language we expect from a defensive government that can see a possible election loss in the near future. But the Treasurer is correct. The Opposition Leader is indeed a danger to the complacency and fence-sitting that Labor displays on important issues. His dog-whistling may simply be a call to Bill Hayden’s drover’s dog as he senses the unease of voters towards a government on which they pinned great hopes. His statements divide because Labor knows only how to multiply when it comes to debt.

David Morrison, Springwood, NSW

It’s one thing for Jim Chalmers to propel himself forward, with considerable chutzpah, in Labor’s leadership pecking order. But his claim that Peter Dutton is the most divisive leader of a major political party in Australia’s modern history must be challenged. Labor’s Gough Whitlam is a perennial contender; witty and entertaining but also an economic wrecking machine. Then there are two divisive figures who aren’t even leaders. First is Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who has made it clear that he would prefer canonisation by the green church than fulfilling the energy requirements of businesses and households. The second, unsurprisingly, is the Treasurer. Chalmers has declared traditional capitalism, with its emphasis on supply, demand and flexible prices, isn’t up to the task after centuries of proven economic perform­ance. No, only a new form of values-based capitalism is appropriate. No prizes for guessing whose divisive values would count.

Bob Miller, Leederville, WA

Jim Chalmers is the man with his hands on most of this nation’s economic levers yet is living in some sort of parallel universe to his fellow Australians. His accusations of Peter Dutton would be more appropriate if describing the Prime Minister. He left out “Dutton’s a threat to democracy”, but I guess that will come. Chalmers has spent most of the past 2½ years experimenting with Australia’s economy and Reserve Bank, like Chris Bowen with our future power sources, and Andrew Giles and Tony Burke with immigration and visas. We know Anthony Albanese doesn’t mind plagiarising American political speeches, fictional and nonfictional. It now looks as if Chalmers is picking up on some of the US Democrats’ anti-Trump war cries, but these types of attacks on Dutton are distractions and growing numbers of Australians know it. Albanese and co fail to see Australians want more than character assassinations, hit jobs like Albanese’s on Scott Morrison when Morrison was trying to deal with a pandemic and rogue Labor premiers. They want Labor to realise it has turned Australia into a basket case and have a plan to fix it.

Richard Burnett, Wollongong, NSW

The John Curtin oration by Jim Chalmers (“PM’s offence minister: Dutton is dangerous”, 27/8) unfortunately reveals the Treasurer’s poor grasp of economics as opposed to his excellent understanding of political hyperbole. This is to be expected of someone who studied political science rather than economics at university and has never run a business, having lived off the public purse most of his life. Chalmers’ greatest front page fumble on Tuesday was to accuse Peter Dutton of futuristically stoking the fires of rising interest rates, inflation and unemployment when these are the hallmarks of Chalmers’ 3½-year reign on the Treasury benches. Now it seems this unimpressive economist, through parliament, is attempting to reorganise the Reserve Bank so it fits to his liking. Worryingly, the opposition seems to be somewhat compliant – an independent central bank is far more important than politics.

Paul Haege, Darling Point NSW

Mon dieu! Isn’t it a bit rich of the Treasurer to be accusing the Opposition Leader of being divisive and dangerous when he is a senior member of a government that has mismanaged the release of dangerous criminals into the community, reintroduced protectionist policies, stymied the RBA’s attempts to lower inflation, suggested that “rhetorical support” for Hamas was not a problem, offered the weakest response to the rise of anti-Semitism and undermined our comparative advantage in cheap energy by rushing headlong into renewables?

Chris Lilleyman, Winthrop, WA