Menu:
Competition
This competition has now ended. Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison has answered all of the winning questions - here are their responses:
1. Why the hell couldn't you have written this sooner? (Paul, Qld)
It takes time for a pattern of political behaviour - like the pattern of silencing we describe in the book – to be become evident. After ten years there is really no doubt that an anti-democratic sentiment is driving the Howard government’s intolerance. These are not isolated incidents, there is evidence here of a systematic effort to silence critical voices. If we had written the book earlier the evidence may not have been quite so compelling.
2. Do you believe that in general, Australian people have become more weary of Howard's tactics, and do you think there is any one turning point when this happened?
There seems to be a growing sense of dissatisfaction with Howard, and a new restlessness and sense of engagement among voters, as evident in the current polls showing support for Rudd and the ALP. A couple of key issues – climate change and the continuing incarceration of David Hicks – seem to have been catalysts for some of this dissatisfaction. But we’re a long way from the next election - anything could happen yet!
3. Do you think there will be a return to the concept of Ministerial Responsibility whereby the Minister of the Day takes responsibility for the actions of his or her department? (Chris, SA)
This is a very good question. The traditional system of Ministerial Responsibility was always based on a voluntary commitment to honour and political integrity. In our view, these characteristics have been seriously devalued across the board and are now the exception rather than the rule - a bit like Adam Gilchrist deciding to walk before being given out. We respect it but no longer expect it. I have often wondered whether we could make Ministers legally responsible for their decisions and be liable to penalty if they lie or deceive. They would also have legal responsibility for the actions of their direct staff. Does this happen anywhere I wonder?
4. Given the setting that we now find ourselves in, what advice would you give to young people to help sustain an independent way of thinking so that they are less manipulated by the media? (John, Youth Team Leader, Tas)
It's much easier to avoid manipulation if you understand more deeply how the media works. A couple of useful hints: 1) notice the by-line and ask whether there is a pattern in the way the journalist writes about things - this is pretty easy with most writers for The Australian as they are relentlessly biased; 2) read alternative media to get a variety of perspectives. It is important to adopt a questioning stance without sinking into nihilistic cynicism.
5. By promoting a neo-conservative agenda for family values, do you believe that this government renders single people (in particular the elderly, divorced or widowed) as being of a similar type to those that the European Churches tried to remove from society during the witch hunts held between 1400s and the 1700s? (Janet, VIC)
It is extraordinary how politicians on both sides bang on endlessly about how various decisions and events will affect "families". The majority of households in Australia are not "families" but singles, couples and group households, not to mention households with children that do not meet the hetero stereotypes. It is as if the majority of the population has been disenfranchised. This trend is indeed all part of a conservative moral agenda that appeals to a yearning or memory most people have of a happy family ideal. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the romanticisation does not become divisive and exclusionary.
6. How come the Australian Government did not prevent this book from being published? (Heman, WA)
The Howard Government attempted to prevent Andrew Wilkie's book being published. We were a little anxious that we might feel the heavy hand of the Government, but imagine the fall-out if the Government had attempted to suppress a book saying it attempts to silence dissenting voices! It would have been a lay-down misere for us.
Some right-wing commentators have said that our argument cannot be right because our book was published. These people seem to believe that the marker of a healthy democracy is whether books are banned or not, which only displays their contempt for free speech.
7. Readers of Silencing Dissent may become well aware of the Howard governments tactics in silencing dissenting voices, but is there any way you can translate your findings to the broader public - the non-readers, the casual voters of Australia, the apolitical - and effect significant national change and greater awareness? (Nathan, NSW)
We worked very hard as editors to ensure that this book is as readable and accessible as possible. We have also traveled the country talking about the book and doing lots of media. But we are hampered by the sort of media that shows an interest – for example, none of the commercial radio stations were interested n talking about the book. This really does restrict the sort of audience we can reach. We hope that word of mouth encourages even non-readers to pick up the book.
8. Will a change of government go any way to changing the slow dissolution of democracy which the book portrays, or are the Labor politicians as guilty of 'power at any price' as the Coalition? (Clare, Qld)
We would love to hear a strong response from the federal opposition to the issues we raise in the book. There are certainly some things that could be fixed quite easily by a new government if they had the will to fix them. There are other issues, however, that go to the heart of our political culture, which will be more challenging to restore. There’s not a whole lot of evidence at the moment that the ALP has a deeper commitment to a culture of democratic participation, but we’d be happy to be wrong!
