In every organisation there is usually an Achilles’ Heel, some fact which if widely known or understood, can cause damage,either financially or to reputation.
When I worked at Australian Bankers Association, everyday we’d be contacted by journalists and the wider public with complaints about banks.
‘They are too profitable and ripping me off in fees,’ was very common. To that we’d explain that banks were 25 per cent of the stock market and if they did not make profits, retirement funds would be decimated.
When branches closed in a regional area, we’d argue that there were usually other branches for the customer to switch, and then a whole host of statistics showing customers preferring electronic banking over branch visits.
High CEO salaries was a tough one to justify, but even here there were at least arguments.
The one issue I felt there was no adequate explanation involved the exorbitant interest rates charged by banks on standard credit cards. In my assessment, they were simply too high, even though credit card loans are unsecured.
One day a journalist rang up armed with a new report suggesting the big banks were ripping off credit card loan customers and was seeking a comment from us. One of the media team asked me for a response.
I was busy on another matter and didn’t have time to examine the report cited by the journalist. I said, ‘Just tell them that we’ve not had time to examine the report, but to date, we’ve seen ‘no evidence’ that credit card interest rates is a problem for consumers.’ Technically, my statement was accurate.
I was amazed at how effectively the use of the term ‘no evidence’ seemed to satisfy the journalist and, in fact, may scuttled the story. There was no adverse article in the paper the next day.
Ever since then I’ve been very sceptical whenever I hear a politician or indeed any head talking in public invoke the term ‘no evidence’. You might be surprised at how often it is used.
I am writing this article on the March 25, 2024. Just yesterday, I found at least two uses of the term from our political leadership.
Employment Minister Murray Watt was commenting on the Coalition’s policy requiring public servants to come back into work.
He is quoted as saying that he has ‘not seen any evidence’ that working from home is a drag on productivity. Note the use of the word ‘seen’, which means there is a get-out clause if indeed there are studies showing productivity degradation. Which there are.
Then we had the Finance Minister Katy Gallagher, one of the so-called Mean Girls, remarking about the growth in the public sector of 36,000 over the last three years.
According to Katy, ‘There is absolutely no evidence to say that it’s growing out of pace with the work that it needs to…’ The thing to note here is that her statement is unfalsifiable, coming up with a methodology and sources of data to test that claim is impossible.
These were just from yesterday. But of course, the ‘no evidence’ retort has had a grand history.
US tobacco companies invoked it for decades to deny smoking was associated with cancer.
Pharmaceutical spokespersons repeatedly claimed there was no evidence that their drug OxyContin was addictive when used as directed, even though there were cases that suggested it could be.
The one example I enjoyed recently was when the Department of Foreign Affairs, a department chock full of anti-Western globalists, determined there was ‘no evidence’ that Australian funding sent to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) was being channelled to Hamas.
Another classic example centred on the March 2023 press conference where Anthony Albanese announced the final draft wording of the question to be put at the Indigenous Voice to Parliament Referendum.
Pretty much the whole rationale for the Voice was based on a recognition that the historical approach used to improve the lives of Indigenous people had failed miserably and something new was needed.
At the press conference, a journalist asked why if previous advisory bodies had failed, the Voice would be different. Professor Marcia Langton AO was given an opportunity to respond.
She said: ‘So, yes, there have been many advisory groups and consultative groups and councils. There’s no evidence to suggest that they didn’t work.’
Others would disagree…
The use of ‘no evidence’ is plaguing public discourse generally. It is designed to give credibility but does so by hiding the issue within the bounds of being unfalsifiable.
And as the Left has systematically dominated universities, research grants, public services, and academic journals, what research evidence is generated on policy issues is always leaning one way, supporting every Woke delusion. How many government-funded studies in Australia have catalogued the various costs associated with multiculturalism? You know the answer.
What a cocktail we have. A combination of politicised research, and the widespread use of the term ‘no evidence’ has shaped a public debate environment in which uncovering and widely publicising the truth on issues is near impossible.
What a mess.
Nick Hossack is a public policy consultant. He is former policy director at the Australian Bankers’ Association and former adviser to Prime Minister John Howard.
