Menu:
Author Q&A
1. Why did you write Silencing Dissent?
In 2004 we collaborated on a discussion paper for the Australia Institute, also called Silencing Dissent (Richard Denniss was also an author). That paper was based on a survey of Australian NGOs (discussed in chapter 5 in the book) about their experiences under the Howard government. The results of the survey were truly shocking and we felt that the discussion paper was a pretty important piece of work. So did many in the NGO community – the paper spread like wildfire and we both received many requests to speak at community forums, AGMs and conferences.
What confronted us again in these meetings was the anger, frustration and despair these groups were experiencing as a result of the federal government’s failure to listen to them. They were very worried about the resulting inequalities that they observed in their areas of work among disadvantaged and marginalised groups. We began to consider the broader implications of this for Australian democracy and to think of other places where silencing tactics had been used. We had also written about the undermining of academic freedom and the politicization of the public service. The result is this book: our attempt to articulate the erosion of Australian democracy in key areas over the last ten years. Frightening stuff!
2. What were some of the challenges (if any) involved in developing this book in the current political landscape?
The most significant challenge we faced in developing and editing this book was the evident fear among potential contributors. The silencing tactics we describe in the book are certainly working! Although there are many shocking stories in the book, there were many others that we could not include because informants would only tell us their stories ‘off the record’, with the promise not to publish the information as they were afraid of the repercussions from government. Some examples that do appear in the book have been bowdlerized to exclude reference to events and people that would be damaging.
We hope that now the book has been published more of these people will feel able to publicly tell their stories and expose the full extent of the silencing that is going on.
We were very pleased that those who wrote chapters for the book agreed to do so as in some cases they have taken quite a risk. It will be interesting to see whether any of them experience any retribution.
3. The Howard Government is widely regarded to have established relative economic stability over the course of ten years, yet a pervading theme in Silencing Dissent is the increasing uncertainty, fear and instability felt through out the public service, the research community, military and intelligence services and universities since 1996. How conscious do you think the Australian public is of the reasons behind this uncertainty, and why?
One of the points we make in the book is that the effect of the government’s silencing tactics is to keep the wider public uninformed. We argue that an uninformed public cannot participate in democracy in any meaningful way, other than by voting every few years. This is the thinking behind the ‘boiling frog’ analogy – the erosion of Australia’s democratic institutions has been gradual. There are probably many people in these institutions who are not really conscious of what has changed – they just know that there is less capacity to speak up, to challenge authority, to articulate points of view that are critical of government. After all, most people just want a quiet life.
At the same time the increasing marginalisation of those who are prepared to speak out—as ‘out of touch elites’ or individuals with an axe to grind—means that the wider public is more inclined to dismiss those points of view when they are articulated. A good case is that of Mike Scrafton, the former ministerial staffer who blew the whistle on Government lies over the children overboard affair. The Government attempted to trash his reputation. So the end result is that most people are not conscious of these changes and do not understand the growing fear and uncertainty in our institutions.
4. What changes need to occur in order for the Australian public to be more confident in our democratic processes, and ensure that every Federal Government is "questioned, challenged, probed and opposed" when necessary?
The first point is that dissent needs to become valued again as an important part of a healthy democracy. Suggestions that criticising government is ‘un-Australian’ (whatever that means!) or only the work of ‘out of touch elites’ need to be debunked for the rubbish that they are. Dissenters should be championed as making a real democratic contribution. Some of the most revered Australians have been those who stood up to authority.
Secondly, there is repair work to be done on each of the institutions discussed in the book. In the NGO sector, for example, we would propose a compact between government and the sector – like they have in Canada and the UK – which provides rules for good relations between government and the voluntary sector. Political interference needs to be reduced in all of these institutions so that they can properly fulfill their democratic role.
Thirdly, we would encourage everyone reading this book to act on the issues we raise. This is an election year after all – a good time to be pressuring your local member, letting them know that these issues concern you and asking what they would do to protect Australian democracy. At the end of the day, change won’t come from the top. Change will happen when the Australian public demands that it must.
As we say in the book, “democracy needs champions.” It’s not too late for the frogs to jump out of the pot!
5. In light of the issues raised by contributors in Silencing Dissent, what key concerns do you have for the future of Australia under the current government?
If the current erosion of Australia’s democratic institutions continues there are a number of deeply worrying consequences. Already we have seen individuals and organisations become ground down and fearful. We have seen the loss of organisational capacity to articulate dissenting and independent points of view. This has implications for a fair and just Australia, and implications for the development of good public policy. After all, it is the most vulnerable members of our communities who will be most at risk should these trends continue.
Then there are flow on effects. Australia runs the risk of losing international standing and gaining a reputation for being intolerant and undemocratic. The most worrying long-term outcome is that Australia will become a democracy in name only. An uninformed citizenry trotting off to the ballot box every three or four years is not really democratic. If we don’t stop the erosion of our democratic institutions then the creeping authoritarianism we have witnessed over the past decade will inevitably escalate.
