Beyond Deck-chair Economics: The Case for Transformative Reform
Treasurer Jim Chalmers closed his Economic Reform Roundtable with a telling observation: "We recognise that we as people of influence with this opportunity have responsibilities in lots of ways, but especially intergenerational responsibilities, and we take them very seriously," he said. "We give ourselves a much better chance of being the best in the world at confronting those challenges in an upfront way, in an honest way, and in a decisive way if we include more people in that task."
If there was one defining element of the contributions, it was that they were "intergenerational. "The test now is whether the government and the nation can live up to those words.
What intergenerational responsibility really means
The word "intergenerational" was invoked repeatedly during the roundtable. But if it is to be more than a political flourish or a buzzword, it requires presence, impact and process.
Presence means ensuring different generations are physically represented—sounds simple enough. There were glimpses of this, yet younger voices were conspicuously thin, with many leaving their hopes for intergenerational representation to the younger alternates of more senior attendees. Ambitions for impactful inclusion, meaning those present are enabled to shape outcomes meaningfully, were also diminished by the dilution of intergenerational interests.
The ACTU arrived with bold proposals, several of which were consistent with the interests of younger generations, such as winding back negative gearing and the regulation of artificial intelligence. Despite this, these ambitions were notably hamstrung by the "outnumbered" position of ACTU representatives.
The danger with “intergenerational” is that it slips into virtue signalling. Its repetition at forums like this gives the impression of breadth and foresight, but without clear mechanisms, it merely flatters the present while doing little for the future.
The false economy of iterative change
Chalmers pledged to be upfront. Being upfront means naming the limits of incrementalism.
The Roundtable produced a series of reform directives, including cutting tariffs and simplifying the National Construction Code, leaving Ministers with a task list of quick wins. These initiatives have merit, but they are tweaks, not transformations. Economist Julianne Schultz called it "lipstick on a dinosaur”, but further inspection highlights the implicit danger, making it more accurately described as deck-chair economics on the Titanic: small shifts that keep policymakers busy while the iceberg looms.
Australia's systems are structurally short-termist. As Ken Henry has noted, we are in the midst of an "intergenerational tragedy." Negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions continue to distort housing markets, worsening inequality and excluding younger Australians from homeownership. Treasury has warned that the goal of 1.2 million new homes is unattainable without deeper structural change. Yet, the Roundtable's housing agenda was narrow, with a focus on trimming red tape in construction codes.
Being upfront means acknowledging that iterative change represents a false economy as the cost of inaction compounds daily.
Confronting uncomfortable truths
Chalmers also pledged honesty. That means confronting uncomfortable realities.
First, our obsession with conventional growth metrics is dangerously misplaced. Pursuing growth for growth's sake on a planet already straining under environmental pressures makes little sense. The Treasury's Measuring What Matters wellbeing framework, launched by Chalmers in 2023, acknowledged this reality—yet it has been relegated to the policy sidelines while traditional productivity measures dominate reform discussions.
Second, and perhaps more uncomfortable for those calling for bold leadership, is this truth: citizens bear partial responsibility for the political paralysis we criticise. Many of us have failed in our democratic duty to engage in the sustained, nuanced and productive dialogue that ambitious reform requires. This isn't about younger generations being disengaged—they're highly engaged, but increasingly outside traditional political channels. This deprives the political system of essential insights and energy while leaving leaders isolated when they attempt bold action.
The result is a vicious cycle. Leaders who venture beyond incremental change face unforgiving public and media scrutiny. Meanwhile, those who maintain failing systems face less criticism than those who pursue bold reforms. So leaders choose inaction, knowing it's politically safer to be blamed for preserving a broken system than for taking decisive action that could backfire.
This creates a system that actively disincentivises reform ambition. Without public sentiment that supports leaders to act boldly—and shares responsibility for the inevitable trade-offs—they will continue to defer big decisions, paralysed by fear of blame.
Breaking this cycle requires genuine partnership between citizens and leaders. We cannot demand transformative reform while remaining unwilling to engage in the difficult conversations and compromises that such reform demands.
The path forward: Bold reform through democratic renewal
The Treasurer called for decisive action. Decisive reform isn't about reckless speed—it's about acting with courage and clarity, even when some of the costs are immediate and benefits long-term.
Business representatives left satisfied with red tape cuts and capital incentives. Unions left deflated. The Coalition denounced the event as a "talkfest." This reveals the political reality of reform: someone's interests will always be challenged, and we have passed the threshold where ambitious reform can occur without notable trade-offs. But this is the mantle of our leaders - to guide us to a better future by navigating challenging terrain. Failure to do so falls short of leadership and delivers only maintenance.
The Roundtable's choice to embrace deck-chair economics reflects a deeper problem: Australians have lost grip on the shared vision and identity that would support decisive action in the face of unavoidable trade-offs. A clear-eyed assessment reveals that the state of Australia's social contract leaves a lot to be desired. The nation lacks a clear, shared vision for itself. Civic literacy is weak, and political discourse is polarised. When the social contract and associated licenses are eroded, even governments with election mandates hesitate to use them, fearing a lack of social licence. This is why bold action stalls, why Labor, despite a rare majority government, treads carefully.
This is precisely why we need a decisive approach to defining the future we want to create. A structured process of widespread, inclusive dialogue—beyond consultations with experts or lobbyists—that invites Australians from all walks of life to co-design the future we want to see. Democratic processes alone are not delivering the clarity needed for decisive action. To renew trust and mandate for truly ambitious leadership, we must invest in participatory processes that directly address civic atrophy and our reduced collective capacity for difficult conversations.
Done well, such a process would rebuild social licence and provide the government with the mandate to act decisively. It would nourish our capacity to debate complex issues and give leaders cover to make the hard choices intergenerational responsibility demands. Without it, reforms will remain fragile and reversible.
Legacy or policrastination?
The government has bought itself time and political space. But as Chalmers acknowledged, "the hard work begins now."
If intergenerational responsibility is to mean more than a closing remark, it cannot stop at small tweaks. To be genuinely upfront, honest and decisive requires systemic change: in how we tax, measure progress, and involve Australians in shaping their future.
The choice is stark: embark on the hard work of democratic renewal to enable transformative reform, or continue policrastination—the systemic deferral of hard decisions for short-term gain, the political equivalent of rearranging deck chairs while the iceberg draws closer. The government has identified the right challenges. Now it must summon the courage to match its rhetoric with action.
Author: Taylor Hawkins