Australia's responded to Corona virus with panicked lockdowns and a reckless spending spree

2.      It should be equitable both in a horizontal sense and also in ensuring that persons/firms not adversely affected by the downturn do not make windfall gains.

3.      It needs to be fair to those at the margin and not subject them to sharp arbitrary cut-offs.

4.      It should not encourage rorts or avoidance of debts.

The announced package breaks all of these principles to varying degrees, with the $130 billion in wage subsidies being a wanton offender.

The fortnightly subsidy of $1500 per employee is simply enormous, especially for firms in low-wage labour intensive industries that can keep operating.  It will represent a huge windfall for some virus-affected employers, who were expecting to remain open anyway and will now get a large part of their labour costs paid by government.  It also means employees normally earning less than $1500 per fortnight are likely to get a windfall pay rise, while the self-employed (who generally are not paid a wage) get little from the subsidy.

The programme has further inequities because the cut-off is not phased, and because some enterprises have "lumpy" or discretionary sales revenue streams that can be manipulated to achieve eligibility.  The wage subsidy is only available for businesses who can prove turnover has fallen by more than 30 per cent (50 per cent if turnover is usually more than $1 billion).  Enforcing this restriction will be an administrative nightmare.

Jobseekers will get a $550 boost to their fortnightly welfare payments for six months.  While I don't begrudge the unemployed their still meagre incomes (and the Jobseeker Payment had been unduly low compared with pension payments), some very real equity issues arise.

It is, for example, not clear that those who recently lost their jobs because of the corona virus impacts are more deserving than those who had lost their jobs for other reasons in earlier periods (and had been on half the new rate).  Jobseekers also will be in for belt-tightening when the $550 boost gets taken away next Spring.  There are also equity issues concerning the eligibility of casuals and their benefit rates.  Some not long in their jobs will get nothing, while other casuals eligible for the payment will be better off than when they were working (something that should never happen).

The Government will provide a one-off $750 payment to around 6.5 million social security, veteran and other income support recipients and concession card holders.  These (windfall) stimulus payments to households (in part) are supposed to support employment levels by stimulating demand.  The reality is that the measure won't help the sectors most affected by the virus because governments have shut these industries down completely.  The $750 payments are simply largesse at a time when the Budget can least afford it, and under circumstances where (largely housebound) recipients have fewer outgoings (because most social venues are closed).

In addition to the fact that stimulus spending works poorly during an economic shutdown, I am personally opposed to governments sending out windfall "cheques-in-the-mail", signalling that the money should be spent.  I think such a policy encourages an entitlement mentality, and undermines traditional virtues of thrift and good financial management.

Government measures are set to cause chaos and major losses in the real estate industry.

Besides physical auctions and open houses being banned (and already contributing to a fall in property prices), a moratorium on evictions has also been introduced.  Additionally, a mandatory Code of Conduct is being introduced for commercial tenancies  The code involves rent reductions based on the tenant’s decline in turnover to ensure that the burden is shared between landlords and tenants.  The Commonwealth (along with some state governments) is also seeking to act as a "model landlord" by waiving rents for all its small and medium enterprises and not-for-profit tenants.