Chalmers Draws a Line on One Nation — But Not Its Voters
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has told progressives not to dismiss voters drawn to One Nation, in the Bernie Fraser oration at the Shine Dome in Canberra, according to Guardian Australia.
What Chalmers said
Chalmers said Pauline Hanson would be a disaster in government. He described One Nation as "inexperienced, incompetent and incapable of managing the economy or our international reputation".
He said a significant number of Australians see value in the One Nation-aligned message of returning to the "good old days". He said progressives should not scold, mock, cancel or talk down to those who see appeal in that message.
The 2026 oration featuring Hon Dr Jim Chalmers MP was scheduled for 13 October 2026 at 7:30 pm AEDT at the Shine Dome, according to the Australia Institute. Chalmers was sworn in to the role of Treasurer on 23 May 2022, according to Treasury.
Why it matters
In my view, the structure of the argument is the story. Chalmers separated the party from its voters in the same speech. The party is ruled out. The voter is kept in play. Press-gallery regulars will recognise the split. It lets Labor run a hard economic-management case against One Nation without sounding contemptuous — like a coach bagging the opposition plan but not the crowd.
For Labor people watching the language closely, the instruction was unusually direct. Do not scold. Do not mock. Do not cancel. Do not talk down. Chalmers clearly thinks those habits exist on his own side. In practical terms, that covers how MPs speak, how candidates post online, and how volunteers talk on doors.
The broader context here is the venue itself. A Treasurer's oration — a formal set-piece speech — is normally about credibility and laying out an economic worldview in calm terms. Chalmers used it to draw a political boundary as well. He condemned One Nation's fitness for office on the economy and international reputation, where a Treasurer speaks with most authority, while saying the wish for stability and familiarity behind the "good old days" appeal must be engaged, not dismissed. The tension is obvious. He gave no step-by-step answer, at least in the reported remarks. He offered an attitude.
