How to Discredit a Report, Minister

this is wonderful news it's a country yes man is that overnight we turn a rundown chemical plant from a lost maker into one of the most profitable units in the PC you see the point is that this Factory is in my constituency but it'll be good for the constituency more jobs more money and the people we can possibly offend to be a few cranky environmentalists at most I should say it couldn't cost us more than about a hundred votes my majority is 91 whatever if it proves not to be safe I shall not allow it to be manufactured here smoothly produces one of those cautious wait-and-see reports well in that case we don't publish it you mean we suppress it certainly not we just don't publish it what's the difference oh it's all the difference in the world suppression is the instrument of totalitarian dictatorships we don't talk that sort of thing in a free country we simply take a democratic decision not to publish it hi what am I supposed to say to the press in Parliament we were hoping the Henderson report would say we've made a wise decision instead they say we've cocked it up oh very droll Minister what would I say well there is a well-established government procedure for suppressed pork deciding not to publish reports we of course you simply discredit them good well stage one you'll give your reasons in terms of the public interest we should do what we reasonably can to limit emissions and avoid climate change man-made climate change but we shouldn't clobber the economy you hinted security considerations they are a-- an extremist splinter group from the most extremist terrorist group the world has seen will you point out used to put unwelcome pressure on government because it might be misinterpreted well I'm not sure that's exactly what he's suggesting anything we've misinterpreted the Sermon on the Mount could be misinterpreted indeed it could well be argued the Sermon on the Mount had it been a government report should certainly not have been published a most irresponsible document all that stuff about the meek inheriting the earth could do irreparable damage to the defense budget what else before you say it'd be better to wait for a wider and more detailed study over along the timescale well suppose there isn't much better still you commissioned one gives me more time to play with a final report with recommendations will occur later in the year and all this is what you call stage one yes nine states too you go on to discredit the evidence that you're not publishing well if you're not publishing it oh really minutes it's much easier if it's not published obviously you're do it by press leaks of course not directly you say it leaves some important questions unanswered that much of the evidence is inconclusive now you know I think that the climate change science is far from settled that the figures are open to other interpretations that certain findings are contradictory the fact that we've had if anything cooling global temperatures over the last decade notwithstanding continued romantic increases in carbon dioxide emissions suggest that the role of co2 is not nearly as clear as the climate catastrophists would suggest but to make accusations of this all time you'd have to go through it with a fine-tooth comb no no say all these things without reading it there's always some questions unanswered okay well the ones that weren't asked yes now in stage three you undermine recommendations not really a basis for long term decisions not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment we see a bigger better brighter future for them which is being gainfully employed are you aware of the study by Melbourne University professor Geoff Borland but found work for the doll caused participants to spend longer amounts of time on benefits than unemployed people who weren't working for the dog I have seen all sorts of studies in relation to work for the dull what I would simply say is that the evidence that I have seen the anecdotal evidence not really any need for a fundamental rethink of existing policies broadly speaking endorses current practice all that sort of things is it the Australian people voted to repeal the carbon tax and they voted to repeal it for two primary reasons it doesn't work it's not achieving its goals but it comes at an immense cost more than that of course it came without an election mandate the trick nearly always done then you move on to stage four Oh Stage four now in stage four you discredit the man who produced the report off the record of course and I want to assure Andrew and everyone who has contributed to this report that we will meet these challenges yes at times Andrews recommendations run ahead of today's public opinion you say that he's harboring a grudge against the government all these a publicity seeker or better still that he used to be a consultant to a multinational company supposing it wasn't that he's hoping to be everybody's hoping to be a consultant to a multinational oh he's trying for a knighthood or a chair or Vice chancellorship Minister there are endless possibilities you campaigned against the legislative prohibition against giving offence and I'm pleased to say that the author of those draft laws is now leaving the Parliament well done IPA the Minister for administrative affairs James hacker has announced that he will not be giving his approval for the British chemical cooperation to manufacture propanol the report of the Henderson committee while generally approving the drug said it would be irresponsible to deny that future research might disclose health risk well Minister well hungry do you feel like a hero did I do a number 10 will be delighted one of the worst governmental decisions I've ever witness and one of the best political decisions I've ever made oh oh yes ministers

Channel: Peter Deane

Views: 651,556

Keywords:

Id: qre8SluzMxE

Length: 6min 48sec (408 seconds)

Published: Mon Aug 04 2014