Letter says Jim Chalmers is unfairly blamed while Australia’s economy is constrained by bad policy and powerful institutions
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
A reader contends that Treasury Minister Jim Chalmers should not be held responsible for Australia’s economic troubles, arguing that entrenched policy settings and other institutions, not Chalmers alone, are driving the pain.
A letter to The Age argues that Treasury Minister Jim Chalmers should not be blamed for the nation’s current economic difficulties, which the writer says stem largely from factors outside his direct authority and from long-standing policy failures that predate him. The correspondent praises Chalmers as a "wise and courageous" treasurer who has begun reversing policies such as the negative-gearing ban introduced under Paul Keating and the modest capital-gains tax changes made by Peter Costello. The letter also notes Chalmers’ attempts to tax gas exports were overruled, drawing a parallel to former Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s protection of a tax concession for the gold industry. While acknowledging that the Reserve Bank’s control over interest rates remains entrenched, the writer maintains that many of the challenges confronting the economy are beyond Chalmers’ decisive control and cannot fairly be laid at his feet alone.
"He’s been one of our wisest and most courageous treasurers. He has started to undo the profound damage caused by Paul Keating retreating for party political reasons from a ban on negative gearing and by Peter Costello weakening an already very mild capital gains tax," the letter states.
The correspondent also references broader public debate on fiscal tools, citing suggestions from economists David Gruen and Ross Garnaut to use GST adjustments as an inflation lever alongside the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy. Other letters in the same forum discuss the regressive nature of both GST hikes and interest-rate increases, proposals for wealth taxes, and calls for independent bodies to assess infrastructure spending. The collection of letters reflects a wide range of opinions on taxation, housing, and political leadership in Australia and abroad, illustrating how deeply divided public debate remains over who should bear responsibility for economic pressures.