Not much behind Kevin Rudd's shock and awe

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd used his first state-of-the-nation address to warn Australians of the "worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression", striking fear into the hearts and minds of those who have not been following the meltdown.

Treasurer Wayne Swan echoed his leader's message, warning that the "global crisis has entered a dangerous new phase'' - no ambiguity there, either - and a claque of Labor MPs parroted the same message yesterday whenever a microphone appeared. No one here, or abroad, could possibly now doubt the severity of the fiscal collapse and, as an economic stimulus, the Rudd Labor Government's $10.4 billion package offers a quick solution which even Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull rapidly blessed, though with some understandable concerns. The principle problem for Rudd, Swan and the third member of their economic team, Treasury Secretary Ken Henry, is that the big plan has come up with little, if anything, in the way of supporting argument or forecast documents. While the beneficiaries of the Rudd Government's unexpected pinata are not ungrateful for the largesse they will be showered with, Australians are justified in asking what economic data the troika used last weekend when considering what action was needed. When the last Labor prime minister Paul Keating released his first economic program, Working Nation, at the end of February 1992, the ambitious program was accompanied by enough tables and charts and graphs to gladden any bureaucratic heart. That plan, like Rudd's Economic Security Strategy, was designed to resolve a crisis - in Keating's case, soaring unemployment. The aim was to create 800,000 jobs by 1996 but by the end of 1992 unemployment had reached 11.4 per cent, the highest level since the Depression in the 1930s. Two years later, in May 1994, Keating presented his second big idea to Parliament, the One Nation package - a five-year plan (again supported by copious amounts of documentation) which was aimed at creating two million jobs. By the end of 1994 unemployment had been reduced slightly to 9.3 per cent but the improvement proved temporary. Older voters may also remember another similarity between Keating and Rudd, beyond their fondness for theatrical celebrities; their visions of themselves as global leaders, which in Keating's case had him ricocheting around Asia like a billiard ball garnering support for his beloved APEC. Ultimately, he came undone because sufficient voters believed he was out of touch with their interests. In Question Time yesterday, Rudd pointed to actions the US had taken overnight to justify his actions of the weekend but did not, or perhaps could not, articulate the rationale behind the structure he has announced for Australia. While pensioners and first home buyers may not be overly interested in knowing why they have been given such generous handouts, taxpayers - whose money is being dispensed - are entitled to know the thinking behind the strategy. Rudd's arrogant refusal to provide any detail demonstrates either a profound ignorance which renders him unable to provide any reasoning, or a rare degree of contempt for those whose money he has given away. Having promised on Tuesday night "to level'' with the Australian public, Rudd owes it to them to do just that and not hide behind the projections made public last week by the International Monetary Fund. As the IMF has acknowledged, Australia, because of its unique commodities-based economy and because of the robust surpluses built up by the Howard government, is in a better position to weather the economic crisis than most developed nations. Nor is it good enough for Swan to bluster about the global crisis as if merely mentioning the international economic situation should be sufficient to prevent further questioning, or for Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner to taunt the Opposition about what its approach may or may not be without revealing the advice the Government has acted upon. By not sharing that advice, while at the same time making apocalyptic statements about the need to act urgently, the Rudd Government has created greater uncertainty and may have undermined the intention of its $10 billion spend-a-thon. One doesn't have to be a graduate from the London School of Economics to realise that spending on this scale may well send next year's Budget into deficit. Nor does it take any particular brilliance to understand that Japan, our major customer for coal exports, is in recession and that its demand for our resources is very likely to diminish. Constantly asking for our trust while refusing to come clean on important details of the economy only creates the impression that the Rudd Government has something to hide.