JobKeeper costing shows the perils of economic forecasting

I find it surprising that no one (not senior officials, the government and other politicians — and that includes Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers, plus the commentariat) applied a reasonableness test to the figures being thrown around concerning the number and cost of the JobKeeper scheme.

A figure of 6.5 million accessing the scheme would mean three out of four workers would be accessing it. Surely a figure this high should have raised questions.

Bill Turner, Hope Island, Qld

The JobKeeper program is going to cost taxpayers $70 billion instead of $130bn, and Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese is complaining. What is wrong with this guy? I’m very glad that he and his mob aren’t in government, because I suspect we’d get a replay of their wasteful and ineffective spending during the GFC.

The forecasting was done by Treasury, which governments rely on for such forecasts, in a tight time frame, under difficult circumstances, and naturally would err towards the worst case to ensure the program was properly provided for.

Let’s keep perspective on what it was — a forecasting inaccuracy by Treasury, not an error. And if you could, as Albanese claims, “see from space” the forecasting inaccuracy, why didn’t he point it out earlier?

David Montani, Bull Creek, WA

Last week highlighted how hazardous it is in the midst of a crisis, to estimate the effect of that crisis. In late March, the government announced JobKeeper and estimated that it could be required by up to 6.5 million workers; it now looks as though 3.5 million will get it.

That estimate was with the benefit of modelling on how COVID-19 would affect the healthcare system, modelling which the government released to the public in early April. Of the four responses modelled, the most stringent measures (quarantine, isolation and social distancing) resulted in a demand for ICU beds of 5000, the only response where demand was less than the 7000 beds being made available. There are now five COVID-19 patients in ICU.

Greg Perryman, East Melbourne, Vic

Thanks to phonics

There were no “wars” over reading in the 1970s (“Reading wars hit home”, 23/5). The experts “knew” the best way of teaching was to read aloud to children every day, so they would pick up reading naturally.

I did this for my first child, but it didn’t work. After two years of schooling, he still couldn’t read. In desperation, my husband sat with our son for 10 minutes each evening and taught him how to sound letters and blend them together. We didn’t know it was called “synthetic phonics” then, but it worked. He went on to gain a PhD.

Nowadays there are many resources to help parents, but I especially like the Alpha-Phonics workbook. It proceeds at the child’s pace, blending short vowels with simple consonants, eventually covering all combinations. By the end of the book the child can decode any word, providing a firm foundation for all future study.

Roslyn Phillips, Tea Tree Gully, SA

Bad decision on Sheean

Defence Minister Linda Reynolds has made a bad decision by rejecting the recommendation that Teddy Sheean be awarded, posthumously, the Victoria Cross for valour (“Snub of war hero Teddy reignites furious battle for VC”, 23/5). What avenues are open for a further appeal?

Reynolds has defended her decision but there does not appear to be a statement on her website. She is reported to have made her decision on the basis that there was no new evidence. She should be asked why new evidence was required.

The public and the defence community deserves a better explanation from this minister.

Max Ball, Mosman Park, WA