Catallaxy Files

Reflecting further on my previous post on the failed insulation program, perhaps we should consider the program from the perspective of putting the insulation industry permanently on the taxpayer life support?

Before the original insulation program, the industry existed nicely without government subsidies.

Then, on the pretext of insulating us from the global financial crisis (excuse the pun), the Government rolled out the insulation program in February 2009.

Now it is clear that even proponents of the stimulus program would find it difficult to justify further new stimulus measures.

We discover that the original insulation subsidy program is a failure for various reasons and the government rightly cancels it.

So why do we need a replacement? Has the Government turned the insulation industry from a subsidy-free industry into one – like the automotive industry – that has become addicted to subsidy?

I haven’t really followed this much. I did hear on the news that the Rudd government fears home-grown terrorism from individuals born in Australia – so that’s Jason and me off the hook. Greg Sheridan at The Australian has put in a good word for the report.
The point that he makes that shoud be shouted from the rooftops is this:

The best counter-radicalisation program is a good, open decent society.

He goes on

There are only two overt counter-radicalisation programs we should engage in. One is to provide intensive settlement assistance to people we take in under the refugee and humanitarian program. To bring someone from war and refugee camp-living in Somalia or Sudan, with no competence at living in our sort of society, and dump them in Footscray or Bankstown with a Centrelink leaflet is asking for trouble.

The other area we should work hard in is jails, where Islamist prisoners are recruiting people because they have much stronger beliefs than anyone around them.

Can’t fault that logic. I have quibbles with other aspects of the op-ed but I think those core issues are correct.

Howard Bamsey is the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Climate Change and Special Envoy on Climate Change. He gave a speech to a CEDA debate this week on the post-Copenhagen situation. He is reported as having said (free 21-day trial registration required)

I think the term sceptics is often used to describe those who oppose the straight reading of the science. I understand why they like to use that term about themselves. I personally do not use it. I don’t believe it fits them. I think that sceptics are people who are the heroes of science. Every scientist is a sceptic at heart. The sorts of people who are fostering some of the fundamental questioning of climate science are not sceptics at all. [They are people] who bring an effort of will to a reading of science, not an open mind and not a proper sceptical one.

Unluckily for him, he was debating my good friend Tim Wilson who pointed out, quite politely I’m told, that it wasn’t the place of public servants to be making those sorts of arguments.

The fact that the Government is now directing its departmental resources to attack people who are critical of the process … is actually quite mind-boggling.

It seems Bamsey conceded the point and that it wasn’t the role of the Department of Climate Change

to make political comment …, and if you heard me doing that then I apologise and withdraw it.

Our friends in Canberra have been getting ahead of themselves and its good to see that at least one of them recognised that he’d stepped over the line and apologised.