How bad was the government's insulation scheme, really?

Some months ago, I read a piece in Crikey which analysed the numbers on the insulation scheme - and how much they increased risk for the people who had used it.

I found the numbers fascinating. Basically, they show that the risk of fire from insulation, per insulation, was actually reduced by the introduction of the scheme, and the extra regulation and safety measures it brought in.

I won't rehash all the details here. You can look them up in the original Crikey article.

But I did want to say that it's not entirely unbelievable. The insulation scheme actually introduced safety regulations to an industry that previously had absolutely none - so however much the opposition wants to claim that the safety measures "didn't go far enough"... at least they went somewhere.

What I am seriously disappointed by is: if these figures and analysis have any basis in reality, then the government has completely failed to explain this to anyone, and has, apparently, simply walked away from the issue because it was a "hot potato". These figures don't make what the government did "alright", they just make exactly what wrong they did a different issue. If the government has walked away from a policy that was, in essence, working - and avoided the hard job of explaining this to the populace, because... well, I don't know... because they thought we were too stupid to understand, then... IMHO that's even worse!

I wanted to try to bring attention to this matter again. As the election grows nearer, more and more references are going to be dragged up by the opposition in reference to this matter... but the real issue isn't that the government stuffed up their policy - it's that the government completely failed to explain how their policy, and implantation of it, was actually working.

Let's understand, and complain about, the real issue here.

Conroy already filtering his own site

Would I sound paranoid if I said Stephen Conroy's website is deliberately concealing users' searches for "ISP Filtering"?

Well the evidence is on the page itself:

//Customise the tag-cloud to display what shows up
if (unique[i] == "ISP Filtering")
{
continue;
}

Basically, this piece of code simply says "if the value in the List you are displaying is 'ISP Filtering' leave it out". It's there in plain code, in the HTML of the page you download from his site. However many searches anyone makes on "ISP Filetering" it will never be displayed in the list of users' searches - therefore giving a false impression of what people are actually searching for.

It claims to give you information on what users are interested in then specifically alters that information for, what can only been assumed to be, Senator Conroy's own purposes.

It is also a very blunt solution that obviously wouldn't catch values such as "Web Filtering" or "ISP Censorship". Not only is it surprising behaviour - it's also an ineffective, amateurish and clumsy solution to a problem (that he shouldn't have been trying to solve in the first place).

The worst thing about this is - if Senator Conroy doesn't understand what the difference between this and properly removing the results (on the server side) is, then he is an embarrassment to his portfolio and doesn't deserve the role... if he does understand the difference and can't be bothered fixing it "properly" (so you and I can't simply see it ourselves) then he simply doesn't think this is an embarrassing thing to do.

I think the former is more likely - but either way - he just doesn't get it.

More details - news.com.au article on the subject.

Phony Pope Mobile Fined

It's been a little while since I posted on offbeat news... well, it's been a little while since I posted on anything. I will be back to the political affairs soon - but in the mean time.

A protest Popemobile, built by Sydney activists as a protest against the Pope's visit in July, was issued with a Defect Notice and put off the road. It's driver, Ian Bryce was booked and fined for "having a roof ornament likely to distract motorists".

Details of its adventures, photos, and a video, are linked from the website worldTRUTHday.org.

On top of this, in related news, we now learn that the Government's bill for World Youth Day has come in at more than $100 million over-budget.

The baby bonus

Not Fair: Nelson

"I would have thought that Mr Rudd - who's already tried to pick on seniors and carers - would find another group other than families to pick on and it's very, very important that Mr Rudd understands that every mother loves her baby and this should be an Australia where all babies are equal" - Brendan Nelson

Let's just pull that apart for moment.

"already tried to pick on seniors and carers"
Now by this, presumably, Dr. Nelson is talking about Labor failing to confirm that it would maintain the carers benefit. They failed to confirm that they would continue to pay "exactly the same" benefits, its true - but I think the language of "picking on" is hyperbole.

"find another group other than families to pick on"
Apparently Dr Nelson believes Labor should be picking on someone - but not families.

"every mother loves her baby"
1. Is this true?
2. Even if it is - what about fathers? Does their love not matter? I thought we might have left the sexism behind with the Howard government - but apparently its just a Coalition thing.
3. Even ignoring the sexism of that statement - and assuming it to be true... So what? What on earth does that have to do with support payment policies? If other people's love a were a reason to give government support, that would change a lot of policy, I think.

"this should be an Australia where all babies are equal"
Exactly! It should be! And here's the news flash, Dr Nelson - it's not. Not all babies are born equal - some are born with a lot more in this world than others. And one way to improve that imbalance would be to means test the support given new parents, towards the cost of having babies.

If we means tested stuff like the baby bonus then babies born in Australia would be more equal, and we would be closer to Dr Nelson's dream.


Too Expensive: Turnbull

And, on the idea that working out the baby bonus payments would cost more than it would save in tax dollars... we already do these calculations (quite complicated one's) to work out the value of parent's child care / day care payments... we just need to start working it out a year or two earlier - it's simply an addition to a process that's already in place - not a brand new expense. Give me break.

Bring on the means testing - even if I lose my benefit. It won't cost much more than calculating family benefits does already - and it would actually make Australia much closer to Nelson's stated dream of all babies being equal.

Vote yes to a fairer system. Vote yes to means testing.


Some more sensible words

For a slightly more serious take on the reasons to means test (or get rid of the baby bonus all together) and what to do with the money saved - Andrew Leigh