Kevin Rudd should be thanking Malcolm Turnbull for holding up his $42 billion recession buster bill. Not only will a process of review make the bill better, but he now has an opportunity to demonise the opposition and drive their vote down even further.
And we need a better process of review.
How is anyone supposed to know what this bill is designed to achieve, let alone what it will do, when the last official government forecast for Australian growth we have is 3% from the Treasury, back in December 2008. That forecast was laughable then, and even more laughable now. But it is all we know about the government’s official view on likely growth.
More realistic is the IMF’s -0.2%, although that may also prove a little optimistic.
But if the IMF is right (and even more so if Treasury is right) that doesn’t justify expanding budget expenditures by around 15%.
Which is why I particularly like a couple of ideas floating around at the moment.
Tom Worthington has started a discussion on our forum about using open source technologies to tackle the problem.
This reflects an article in The Age by National Forum Chair Nicholas Gruen called Reduce the bugbears with some beta-tested policies.
The welfare lobby has been quick out of the blocks using the GFC to push their own agendas. These are not necessarily the ones we should be adopting. The welfare housing one, for example, won’t help the poor and will raise the cost of housing, the reverse of what is required. But the housing situation isn’t one that will be fixed by spending money on it, but rather by a complex matrix of reform in planning laws, moderation of immigration and reform of local and state government taxing laws. There is some room for government to build housing, but it is limited to very special circumstances.
It’s time that others with a more holistic view of what Australia needs staked out some parameters of what is needed and what can be done. The Internet seems a good way of doing that, and On Line Opinion stands ready to play its part. Please send submisisons to the editor.
February 05, 2009 | Graham
More evidence please
8 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Note, in the UK, a government report has just been released in ‘beta’ pending final release two weeks later – yes two weeks.
Comment by Nicholas Gruen — February 5, 2009 @ 9:12 am
“The welfare lobby has been quick out of the blocks using the GFC to push their own agendas.”
This is just getting ridiculous. The greatest beneficiary from the taxpayers pocket so far have been industry. $3.9 to insulate homes? Well at least I’ll get some benefit from that. Not likely to buy a car in the medium term so all that money for the car industry just passes me by. Your call for a balancing of views on Rudd’s plan is hypocritical in the light of your polemical stance on most issues. Your comments are guided by your ideology and thus the call for “evidence based policy” is just a smoke screen. There was little or no evidence provided for the spending sprees under Howard, indeed Treasury expressed it’s skepticism publicly. But now you stridently call for a lengthy period of analysis. Priceless!
Comment by Patrick B — February 5, 2009 @ 11:05 am
The haste in assembling and presenting this package boarders on the obscene. Throwing handfuls of cash at the masses will always assure popularity and divert attentions from the bigger problem. Thank goodness Malcolm Turnbull is pouring some cold water on the Hysteria. Australia needs a very measured and cautious approach to the looming crises rather than what appears to be a populist, kneejerk piece of legislation.
Comment by Philip Gelhaar — February 5, 2009 @ 11:18 am
I think the pink batts were courtesy of the AGW lobby more than any industry lobby Patrick. That, and the fact that if their research is like ours, then they know that people are quite prepared to spend money on renovating their house, even in the current climate.
I’ve never been a spruiker for industry. The contrary. I’ve been opposed to industry subsidies for as long as the evidence convinced me that open economies give the best results for citizens, which was somewhere in my early twenties.
What you call “ideology” is adherence to a simple set of principles which have been shown over time to work. You might as well call someone “ideological” for adhering to Newton’s Laws of Motion.
Comment by Graham Young — February 5, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
Graham says: “Kevin Rudd ….. now has an opportunity to demonise the opposition and drive their vote down even further.”
Maybe, Graham, but at the next election Mr Rudd will have driven the country’s credit card to its limit and will have nothing to bribe the non-taxpayers with.
“How is anyone supposed to know what this bill is designed to achieve,”
Well, Graham, Mr Rudd’s spoken aim is to stave off the (Democrat’s) Global Financial Crisis and to stimulate our economy’s growth, but if I was cynical, I would look to Socalist Aims of re-distribution of wealth.
The same thing that GISS’s James Hansen proposed for the Carbon (Dioxide) trading credits.
Comment by Taluka Byvalnian — February 5, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
Hi Frends,
GET YOUR DELL XPS M1530 For FREE
Comment by Slumurgella — February 5, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
Hi Frends,
GET YOUR DELL XPS M1530 For FREE
Comment by Protbeeby — February 8, 2009 @ 3:49 am
Hi Frends,
GET YOUR DELL XPS M1530 For FREE
Comment by Protbeeby — February 9, 2009 @ 1:14 pm