Jim Chalmers handed down a desperate Budget every economist feared could spell disaster. Now, with the Australia teetering on the edge of a recession – here’s how he’s trying to spin it… writes PETER VAN ONSELEN

What do you do when you’ve presented a budget and almost every respected economist criticizes it?

Dismiss their musings as mere “partisan attacks” and pat yourself on the back for your excellent performance, because no one else will. That was the post-Budget tactic used by Jim Chalmers in recent weeks.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Chalmers made his point clear a number of times in Question Time, where ministers are allowed to pick and choose questions to be asked by their own backbench. It is the ultimate exhibition of parliamentary performative art.

The treasurer has even managed to contort himself into a compliment for the publication of shockingly bloodless economic growth figures this week. The economy has grown only 1.1 percent annually, despite record high immigration.

That makes it the worst annual growth rates (barring the pandemic) in more than thirty years.

Without immigration, Australia would already be deep in recession and experiencing high inflation: a catastrophic mix.

Lots to think about. Treasurer Jim Chalmers (pictured) claims his budget did the right thing given slowing economic growth

Still, Chalmer says the poor results are a testament to his excellent economic management. Proof positive that his expansionary budget was the right decision, because without the aid the bad numbers would be even worse.

The argument is especially funny when you consider that immediately after the budget, economists expressed concern that too much was being spent, making the budget expansionary, and the treasurer denied this.

Now that the numbers show the economy is plummeting, he’s relying on the argument he rejected as untrue to defend himself.

That’s why Chalmers now thinks he deserves applause for delivering an inflation budget during a cost-of-living crisis. Doesn’t he understand that the cost of living crisis will only get worse if inflation continues?

There is a risk of extending the timeline of the pain felt by ordinary voters.

Perhaps ignorance – intentional or otherwise – is why the treasurer is now addressing the conga line of economists criticizing his decision-making. They dismiss their concerns because they are allegedly just “partisan critics.” I’ve always found it funny when politicians of all political stripes use this line of attack.

The pressure on the cost of living will not disappear if inflation remains high. Most economists believe that the economy will not decline fast enough

If you disagree with them, some politicians essentially try to portray you as a partisan opponent. The same politicians who join a political party and in turn choose to build a career by blindly following that party’s ideology every step of the way and brutally attacking others for showing partisan bias?

It’s a ridiculous pot calling the kettle black.

Being treasurer is a serious job, but understand this word for word from one of Jim Chalmers’ press releases:

“Our balanced approach to fighting inflation without destroying the economy is a bull’s-eye” and “our political opponents and partisan critics are dead wrong.”

If that’s not political rhetoric, I don’t know what is.

The serious problem for the country is that we face persistently high inflation and there is little prospect of an early reduction in official interest rates. Yet this is happening now that the economy is so shaky that we are on the eve of an official recession.

The budget dropped like a lead balloon, despite Treasurer Jim Chalmers (photo) praising himself

Unfortunately, there is no painless way out of this conundrum.

The government was betting that inflation and interest rates would fall later this year, despite the budget moving in the opposite direction. They took that risk because they wanted to put more money in people’s pockets before the elections so that they could reap the political benefits.

Yet it now appears that this tactic could backfire.

None of these decisions were taken on economic grounds. Politics has dictated decision-making every step of the way.