Jim Chalmers’ art of politics: Repeat, adapt, repeat

Jim Chalmers is the master of the catchphrase, using political mantras to simplify complex issues and repeating slogans adapted to changing economic circumstances and cost-of-living crisis.

Jim Chalmers uses slogans to simplify complex issues, repeating and adapting them to suit the circumstances.

Jim Chalmers is the master of the political catchphrase.

Since the 2022 federal election, Chalmers’ description of the fight against inflation has had multiple iterations including “inflation is public enemy No.1”, “taking the sting out of inflation”, “taking the edge off inflation”, and lowering inflation without “smashing the economy … or smashing the labour market”.

If you associate terms such as “get the budget in better nick” and “people are under the pump” with the Treasurer, that’s because he repeats the mantras ad nauseam in interviews, speeches and press conferences, often multiple times in quick succession.

The use of “unavoidable and automatic spending” by Chalmers and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher masks higher spending.

When Labor talks about tens of billions of dollars in savings, greater focus should be applied to the fact “reprioritisation” means sprinkling clawed-back cash across other priority areas.

When circumstances demand it, Chalmers abandons catchphrases such as “inflation is the dragon we need to slay”, which had a shorter lifespan than Chris Bowen’s stint as treasurer in the dying days of Kevin Rudd’s 2013 return.

Others that have passed their peak include “we’ve got a lot going for us” – which got most of its runs in the first half of 2023 – and “inflation will be higher than we’d like for longer than we’d like”. Immediately following Labor’s election win, he liked to say “there’s no switch that we can flick to make a trillion dollars in debt disappear” or that “inflation will get worse ­before it gets better”.

The Treasurer uses these slogans to simplify complex issues, repeating and adapting them to suit the circumstances.

The 46-year-old, one of the government’s most competent communicators and political wordsmiths, is often criticised for his hokey, colloquial rhetoric that some claim lacks depth and doesn’t cut through.

While Anthony Albanese struggles at times with concise and direct messaging, politicians such as Chalmers and Peter Dutton stick to the same themes and phrases, often slightly altering or shifting words to fit changing ­circumstances.

Chalmers’ 2004 ANU “Brawler Statesman” thesis on Paul Keating included a focus on the former Labor prime minister’s use of language and messaging. The thesis said while Keating’s more abrasive approach appealed to caucus colleagues, “pungent language and aggressive demeanour” could have a negative effect for voters.

Labor insiders say Chalmers is taking a different approach more suited to the modern political era.

Treasurers naturally attract publicity and wield internal influence by holding the purse strings. Despite the ambitions of other Labor ministers, focus groups consistently show Chalmers’ style rates better with voters. On a superficial level, Chalmers presents as an urbane, youthful, suburban dad who simplifies and explains economic issues without the hyper-political venom of some colleagues.

Chalmers is in a prime position to achieve his ultimate dream of becoming prime minister.

The Rankin MP, who followed in the footsteps of Bob Hawke by giving up the grog, hopes to replicate the elevation of other treasurers who stepped up from the economic portfolio to the top job, including Keating, Scott Morrison and Harold Holt.

The Queenslander, who rarely strays outside of his economic portfolio, delivered two recent speeches highlighting to colleagues he was up to the challenge of attacking Dutton and using an economic argument to support foreign policy.

In an August speech, Chalmers described Dutton as “the most divisive leader of a major political party in Australia’s modern history” who is “destructive, divisive, dangerous and stokes division on national security”, while being obsessed with “culture wars”.

With Albanese and Penny Wong copping backlash over the government’s hardening position against Israel, Chalmers used an October speech in Washington DC to make the economic case for a ceasefire.

“In seeking ceasefire and de-escalation we are focused on the human catastrophe but there are economic consequences too,” he said. “We know more bloodshed is one of the biggest threats to the global economy. None of us will escape the economic consequences of an escalating war in the Middle East.”

Chalmers’ cabinet colleagues have lamented about the Treasurer’s rhetoric, catchphrases, intervention in their portfolios and lack of courage to pursue big bang economic reform.

Like his mentor and former boss Wayne Swan, Chalmers doesn’t worry too much about the slings and arrows. But as a Right-faction, Australian Workers Union-aligned Queensland MP, he lacks an obvious powerbase that would deliver him a clear path to the leadership.

The criticism of Chalmers to date is that he has missed a golden opportunity to grasp the full potential of the Treasury portfolio. Chalmers’ biggest win came following the bruising Indigenous voice referendum defeat, when he convinced Albanese to authorise the overhaul of Morrison’s stage three tax cuts. Other areas of internal debate, such as negative gearing, capital gains and corporate tax reforms, remain on the shelf.

If Albanese plunges into minority government or loses to Dutton next year, Chalmers will inevitably face blowback from the Labor caucus that not enough was done to convince voters the government had their backs during the cost-of-living and housing crises.

The soundbite persona adopted by Chalmers will be tested long-term by his ability to cut through and bring Australians with him.