What happens next in Anthony Albanese, Jim Chalmers pantomime will be fascinating to watch

At the moment all we are getting is an embarrassing pantomime from politicians who need better media training, writes Peter van Onselen. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Watching Treasurer Jim Chalmers slip and slide his way around a morning television interview refusing to rule out imposing capital gains taxes on family homes was excruciating. He obviously didn’t want to make the commitment, which suggests he wants to keep the option in some form on the policy table.

Perhaps he simply wants to be able to impose capital gains taxes on high end properties – a family home equivalent of the super changes announced on Tuesday. For example, applying it to proceeds in excess of $5m or $10m.

Perhaps the PhD in political science just thinks that rule in or rule out questions are unfair, because governments need the capacity to change their minds and he doesn’t want to be accused of breaking his promise. That’s intellectually reasonable, but politically?

Keep in mind Chalmers didn’t break a super promise on Tuesday – he said there would be no “major changes” to super before the election. What was announced on Tuesday was minor.

Anthony Albanese on the other hand did break a promise, because he ruled out any changes whatsoever. It’s a subtle but important distinction. In essence, Albo embraced absolutist rhetoric, the Treasurer leaned in on the side of weasel words. Both have their benefits and their pitfalls.

In a Wednesday morning interview, Chalmers was asked to rule out ever imposing capital gains taxes on family homes. He refused, repeatedly, saying he couldn’t rule out what future governments might do.

He was then asked to rule out him as treasurer ever doing it. He said he had no intentions to do so. Are you thinking what I’m thinking? He was thus reminded that no intention certainly isn’t akin to ruling it out, so Chalmers was asked again. Again he refused to rule it out. This went on for a while. I got another coffee.

There is talk of tension between Jim Chalmers and Anthony Albanese, writes Peter van Oselen. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

A matter of minutes after the Treasurer left the studio with his phone running hot, the PM was on radio mopping up the uncertainty, once again with absolutist rhetoric: “We are not going to impact the family home, full stop, exclamation mark, because it’s a bad idea,” Albo said.

Perhaps he should have told Chalmers that. It could have saved us all the painful experience of watching that interview. But can we even now believe it? Because he was similarly absolutist about super and look what happened. This is how trust gets eroded.

Before the clock struck midday Chalmers was forced into a humiliating apology for his loose rhetoric on the family home. It’s left colleagues genuinely wondering if he’s up to the job of Treasurer.

I hear that tensions are running high between the PM and Treasurer at the moment. Each feels that the other is putting self-interest ahead of the national interest, and the best interests of the government.

A cabinet minister confided to me that their view is that Albo is thinking short to medium term, during what will be his time as PM. Chalmers, however, is looking further over the political horizon, given his ambitions to one day lead Labor (in government). Chalmers therefore doesn’t want to kick the fiscal can down the road such that he trips over it as PM years from now.

Meanwhile Albo doesn’t want to become a short term government defeated by its own policy positioning by opening up large scale scare campaigns.

Taxing the family home is a pariah policy, even though it happens all around the world. Doing so should be part of a wider debate about tax reform, but this government won’t hold a tax summit like the newly elected Hawke government did in the 1980s. Wayne Errington and I wrote a book titled Who Dares Loses: Pariah Policies. Taxing the family home is one of them. Inheritances taxation is another.

Wholesale reform – like John Howard introduced when the GST came in – allows for lifting some taxes and dropping others. The problem with this government appears to be that they want to increase taxes without any commensurate reductions elsewhere. Maybe Australians want that, because they want more from government. Maybe we fiscally need higher taxes. Or maybe Australians want less government and lower taxes with diminished services.

Let’s have the debate. At the moment all we are getting is an embarrassing pantomime from politicians who need better media training.

What happens next will be fascinating to watch. Grab your popcorn.

Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics and public policy at The University of Western Australia and Griffith University