In his own words: The Jim Chalmers interview
A transcript of Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers' comments on some of the major economic issues facing Australia.
This transcript has been edited for length, clarity and readability.
Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers:
Favourite economists
Amartya Sen, Janet Yellen, Danielle Wood
Currently reading
Slouching Towards Utopia: An Economic History of the Twentieth Century by Brad DeLong
Measuring economic success
We always saw the first Wellbeing Framework as an iteration rather than a destination. We are trying to get people used to the idea that we can broaden the economic debate beyond the narrow but important measures that we will continue to rely on. To refocus the economic debate on hard economic measures in addition to what it looks like to align our economic and our social values at the same time. To broaden the economic conversation so that it is more substantially about people, which is the Wellbeing Framework, so it's more substantially about the future, which is the Intergenerational Report, and so that it's more focused on opportunities, which is the Employment White Paper some time this year as well.
That's very deliberate to try and say the economy is about GDP, the wage price index, CPI, unemployment rate — of course it is. It will always be. But isn't it also about people and opportunities and the future? And we did a lot of work on the first iteration, but we are realistic about where the gaps are and where we need to collect better data. People wrongly interpreted that [the Wellbeing Framework] as a finished product that had data that wasn't as good as it could be. We recognised that all along and even in the document itself we say we need to get better at filling the data gaps, making them more regular. And so hopefully, even the criticism of it, has focused people's attention on the fact that yes, it’s a first crack at it and we need to do better. That's kind of the point.
Reactions to The Monthly essay
I have realistic expectations about some of the coverage. But I have been so heartened and encouraged by the reaction from the business community, and particularly the investor community, for whom these ideas are not controversial at all. And there are two ways to react to the sort of things that are put out there. There's this old school 1980s Cold War tussle, which I'm not interested in and have never been interested in. There's the conversation that happens in boardrooms about how we align what we want for our business, what we want for our economy and what we want for our country. If we can line those things up, that's great. If there are trade offs, let's talk about the trade offs but overwhelmingly there is an appetite for [this new approach] and I've been overwhelmed by that.
