Larvatus Prodeo » Senate Committee

Senate Committee reports on the fiscal stimulus

Mark Bahnisch — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:28:43 +0000

Anyone actually wanting to find out what the result of the much vaunted Senate scrutiny of the Rudd government’s fiscal stimulus legislation can now do so by reading the Senate Committee report. Peter Martin has more.

Speaking of Peter Martin, he’s posted a couple of interesting links on the same topic today – to Ross Gittens’ claim that Malcolm Turnbull’s opposition is “humbug” and to a study Treasury is said to be relying on to support the contention that bonus money will be spent.

How might the Senate tinker with the stimulus package?

Mark Bahnisch — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 04:47:18 +0000

Simon Jackman has the good oil on what Bob Brown and Steve Fielding are putting on the table as Senate deliberations on Kevin Rudd’s fiscal stimulus continue. Both are emphasising the unemployed and job creation (with Brown arguing for green measures as well). I suspect that this manoeuvring might factor more into what comes out of the Budget sausage machine. The government has clearly been shifting its rhetoric on the unemployed, and I would expect the minors to be told that people on benefits will benefit as a result of the Henry Review. So it may be that some commitments might be made for future measures in exchange for current support. That would still, however, give the minor party Senators a real chance to shape the response to the economic downturn.

The Liberal bottom line

Kim — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:33:28 +0000

Since everyone else is, I thought I might add in my ~~$950~~ two cents’ worth into the great stimulus package debate. I’m also in the camp of thinking Malcolm’s nuts, and while some have been decrying those who discuss the stimulus package in terms of its politics rather than its policy robustness, I’m a tad surprised Turnbull and his crew haven’t copped more flak for a deeply cynical move to try to capitalise on the country’s misfortune – is it the price we need to pay for Turnbull’s desire to be “relevant” – as articulated today? It’s becoming clearer from what’s been reported in the press about the party room meeting that the main factors in the Coalition’s thinking are purely political.

There’s a desire to avoid the mess that happened last year when they split in the Senate, and according to Laura Tingle, they’re searching for a “legacy issue” they can campaign on. Apparently, they realise they can’t say anything good about the Howard government on IR or Climate Change, so “economic management” it is. Possibly Tip’s reappearance is supposed to make us all nostalgic. Or something. But make no mistake – while “tax cuts” might be a rallying cry that will unite all the fractured parts of the Coalition and perhaps their fractured constituencies (and see Possum’s recent interesting post on this) – it’s got very little to do with the public good.

Elsewhere: Evidence from Ken Henry to the Senate Committee suggests a stimulus package of the size Turnbull half-heartedly advocates is a recipe for recession.

Allegations of academic bias in universities and schools: The Senate Report

Mark Bahnisch — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 02:17:41 +0000

As a parting gift to the nation, the Coalition majority in the Senate set up an inquiry into academic bias, at the instigation of the Young Liberals. It’s been discussed extensively before at LP on a number of occasions. The Committee has now reported. Let me just observe that it must have been a highly enjoyable task to write the majority report (italics in the quote from Senator Gavin Marshall are mine):

The committee’s finding is that in view of the relatively tiny number of submissions received, from the hundreds of thousands of students who are said to be affected, there can be no basis for arguing that universities are under the control of the Left and that this is reflected in course content and teaching style. If there is a Left conspiracy to influence the direction of the nation’s affairs and its social and economic priorities through the process of subverting a generation of undergraduates this is not yet evident.

It must be said that the committee processes of the Senate are not at all suited to the kind of inquiry that might have been imagined by its instigators. That is probably less important to them than the fact that the inquiry was held at all. On the other hand it might be argued that as even the most intensive specialist research would be unlikely to reach any conclusion as to the incidence of biased teaching, this inquiry has been as useful as any.

Elsewhere: John Quiggin and Terry Flew.