Can we have some evidence please?
Would you trust someone who constantly asserts things without a shred of evidence to back up their assertions and who throws around accusations that cannot be supported? There is a vast gap between assertions and the truth, a gap that can only be bridged by evidence that one's assertion is based on something more than one's imagination.
Either the Howard government has not grasped that distinction or, more likely, they believe that if their assertions create sufficient fear the voters won't care that the governments' claims are completely unsupported. Fear tactics have worked for this government in the past, so their use should come as no surprise.
Let's examine some of the more recent assertions made by senior members of the government:
Employment figures released yesterday suggest that the unemployment rate is presently quite low. The government immediately claimed credit for the fall in unemployment. Let's ignore for a moment that half the job "growth" is in fact attributed to different measurements employed by the bureau of statistics (that's the great thing about stats - you can change the outcomes without changing the numbers), let's ignore the fact that a person is considered employed if they work as little as an hour a week and that the figures do not include persons who are not actively looking for work (eg. those who have given up). The employment rates are putting pressure on interest rates and inflation, with speculation that the interest rates may rise. Now, rather than telling us how the government plans to address that issue, Costello chose to make unsubstantiated assertions to frighten voters:
"The biggest risk at the moment is (that) on such low unemployment, one miscue, one misfire on industrial relations will set off inflation and bring all this to an end"
"This is like a highly engineered racing car. You take one corner a foot too wide and it will crash"
"You need a good experienced driver in control of this highly calibrated economy."
"And I'll tell you what I wouldn't be doing: I wouldn't be putting an 'L' plate driver in the cockpit at the moment."
The comments are clearly designed to scare the voters off voting Labor. They are somewhat reminiscent of the "L-plate Latham" campaign. Is there any evidence that Labor's economic or industrial policies would cause the crash Costello is warning about? No. If there was, Costello would no doubt be happy to tell us in excruciating detail. Quite apart from being unsubstantiated, his assertions are extraordinarily self-serving. Having apparently admitted to creating an economy so fragile that one tiny miscue will bring it all crashing down, Costello goes on to assert that only "a good experienced driver" - ie him, can control this extremely fragile machinery that he himself created. If Costello is not there for ever and ever, the entire country will come crashing down. We should suspend all further elections and appoint Costello a perpetual ruler of Australia!
Lets take a look at another "Labor will kill the economy" assertion
A few days ago Howard asserted that Labor's proposed greenhouse gas emission reductions would lead to a "Garret recession". Therefore Howard's own environment policy is better (we'd have to take his word for it as he's not telling anyone what it is) and, more importantly, voters should be really, really scared about voting Labor because the whole (fragile?) economy will come crashing down. And what evidence did he give to substantiate his assertion? None. There's actually a reason for it. A report prepared by the same group that the government retained to do the environment policy numbers for them shows that Labor's environmental policy targets are sound and are unlikely to have a significant economic impact. It also suggests that economic impact increases the longer we wait to do something about environmental damage (which is exactly what Howard has been doing and will continue to do if given the chance). The government telling porkies - how surprising!
And then there are the highly unoriginal "Labor and unions" assertions.
Joe Hockey was somewhat upset by the fact that the ACTU president Sharan Burrow dared to lobby to bring the Howard government's attacks on workers rights to the ILO standards committee (if anyone's wondering - he was not at all upset by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry lobbying to block the case). So he decided to utilise the tried and true Howard government tactic, asserting that Burrow's conduct "was proof she stood to become the most powerful non-elected person in Australia if Labor won the federal election." How exactly is it proof of anything other than that Burrow is doing her job? If there was some convoluted logic that explained the proposition, Hockey was certainly not sharing it with us. Bare assertion is enough. Hockey did not say who the most powerful non-elected person is now - possibly Cardinal Pell, judging by his recent conduct.
Speaking of Pell, when Howard was defending Pell's interference in political decision making, he made yet another extraordinary assertion - stating that it was ironic that NSW Labor MPs were complaining about alleged direction from Cardinal Pell when "on a daily basis they are directed by trade union bosses how to vote''. Howard's evidence of that fact? Once again none, but who needs proof when running a scare campaign.
Thanks for reading
RSS
