I think you’re right that the insulation program may have some unforeseen and undesirable effects on that industry – but we’ll have to wait and see. A lot of people these days either live in apartments or already have insulation, and for them the program is redundant.

Dave, you’re right, it is a little worrying that we don’t really have much oversight over just how the Rudd Government came to offer up the package that it has put out there. I suppose in some ways the old sausage-making adage might apply here, but even still, it would be nice to know if the package is actually based to any extent on the advice of experts in Treasury and the economic community more broadly. How much of this package is political, and how much of it is what the Rudd Government perceives based on advice to be “best practice”?

The only ojection is that they want a tax cut, which won’t benefit the most vulnerable – those on benefits including wage supprt because they can only get a few part-time hours.

I’ve got my own ideas of course on how the money could be spent: increase the public service (secure jobs), including running a wider range of government business enterprises.

I’ve also got to wonder how much scrutiny the plan had before the announcements (to be seen as doing something big). Did they grill a whole lot of senior public servants and models before making their decision, or did they just talk in cabinet about what would play out best to the punters?

Also, they are trusting the state premiers to spend…. have you seen audit reports on cost-effectiveness of state contracts lately?

There is no doubt this is a government on L plates. Although there are some things contained in the mini budget which are good the majority of it is a disaster,

· it does very little for employment,

· at best it will give the economy a short term kick at the risk of long term prosperity,

· it doesn’t give enough bang for the buck,

· it doesn’t do anything to install confidence, (in fact it seems Rudd is obsessed with talking the economy down, the Greens should take him on big time on this. I am sure Rudd’s motive is to talk it down as much as possible then become the big hero when it all gets better and in the mean time he is causing a disaster)

· the cash hand outs are great but there no good if you don’t have a job, (the threat of getting retrenched or the fear created when someone you know gets retrenched is a lot more important to people then a few hundred dollars)

· the home insulation package is a great initiative but will be a disaster, it will take years to roll out as there are not enough installers to install insulation in every one’s house in any reasonable time to have any significant effect on the economy but worst of all will result in a lot of sharks getting into the business. The package needs to be done in stages to result in a successful roll out. Perhaps it should be means tested in the first roll out to limit the take up all at once. (The Liberals when in government experienced the same problem with implementation when they introduce the gas conversion for cars, there were people who wanted to take the offer up but couldn’t get it done)

To date, most of the Rudd government stimulus has been focus on consumer retail spending which will not create many jobs, if retail sales go up for a short period due to money stimulus at the best it may put off staff redundancies for a few months but more likely the retailers will only seek greater productivity out of its employees for that short period of time knowing to well the stimulus will only be short lived.

Any stimulus package should be spent where it can be leveraged to get the best bang for the buck and create jobs and job security e.g.

· funding packages and tax breaks for investment would motivate companies to invest their own monies. There are many companies which have shelved shovel ready projects which could commence quickly with the right government incentives. History has proven that trying to kick start government projects quickly is almost a impossibility therefore the reliance and incentive has to be for and on the private sector.

· bringing forward tax deductions for middle to low income earners would increase the spending power of consumers on a continue basis and for some would give them that extra buffer they need to survive or even enter into a house purchase.