The article argues that Treasurer Jim Chalmers is still talking up an ambitious May federal budget built around tax reform, budget repair and productivity, but growing economic uncertainty may give the Albanese government an excuse to retreat from difficult decisions. With conflict in Iran pushing up petrol prices, inflation rising again, another interest rate increase, and warnings from Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock that recession may be hard to avoid, some within government reportedly believe Chalmers may abandon or delay more contentious reforms. Measures such as reducing capital gains tax and negative gearing concessions, and winding back generous tax breaks for electric vehicle leasing, are presented as possible casualties of that caution.
The piece says this hesitation fits a broader pattern. Although Labor has taken a few risks in government, including reshaping the stage 3 tax cuts and increasing tax on superannuation balances above $3 million, its overall instinct has been to avoid politically difficult reforms. That is where Kate Chaney becomes central to the article’s critique. The West Australian independent MP is described carrying a basket filled with hundreds of pages of committee reports, labelled the Albanese government’s “too hard basket”. The image is used to highlight what Chaney and much of the crossbench see as a government habit of commissioning inquiries and then failing to act on their findings.
Chaney’s argument is that this is not merely an administrative failure but a sign of a government that is “coasting” and delaying major policy choices. The article notes that around 50 House and Joint Standing Committee reports and many Senate inquiry reports remain unanswered, despite formal expectations that governments respond within set timeframes. Chaney argues that these reports address major national issues rather than niche concerns. As she puts it, “These reports cover everything from terrorism, illicit drugs, migration, domestic violence through to energy security.”
Her concern also extends to the impact on trust in democratic institutions. The article says about 3500 organisations have contributed submissions and evidence to these inquiries in good faith, expecting their work to shape public policy. Chaney says that faith has been undermined: “Organisations have participated in good faith, thinking the government will do something, but that trust has been squandered. Now is the time for the government to be bold. There is no looming election, they have a big majority and Australians really want to see the big challenges tackled head-on.” In the article’s framing, Chaney’s intervention gives sharper political force to what might otherwise seem like a procedural complaint.
The second half of the piece broadens the argument to productivity and research and development. It criticises the government for repeatedly talking about productivity while failing to seriously invest in science and R&D, despite clear links between research and long-term economic growth. Chalmers reportedly mentioned productivity 25 times in a major speech, but not science or R&D once. The article warns that if Labor uses global instability as a reason to avoid hard choices, including stronger investment in research, Australia risks settling for “long-term mediocrity”.