A Statement on the ABC's Right and Duty to Dissent

The ABC's reply to Alston's criticism of the ABC should be commended for a stirling effort. It was not just a statement on behalf of the ABC. Such statements counter propaganda and if the contribution of loyal dissent is to be preserved we will need more statements like that one. In fact we are witnessing a struggle to overcome a serious loss of insight about the legitimacy of political dissent. This is a deep crisis. In Australian Parliaments the political aspirations of a significant cross-section are no longer fairly and justly represented.

This crisis has not come about overnight. It is the result of a significant political process. We all know that the economic rationalist outlook that dominated the Labor Government from 1983-1996, has been taken over by Howard's Coalition. And now when legitimate dissent is under threat it is important that we do not flinch from making the connections where they have to be made.

What the current Government and its PM fear most is well documented and well-elaborated dissent from economic rationalism. But economic rationalism is indistinguishable from the PM's view of himself on the national and international stage. He now acts as one who identifies his own personal self-interest with the national interest. It is as if the survival of the Liberal Party and the nation are one and the same. In aligning himself and his Government with the attack by the Institute for Public Affairs on NGOs, and their involvement in the public policy process, he forgets that his own place in Parliament is secured by a tax-payer-funded election-machine, a privileged NGO - the Liberal Party of Australia. And this is a crucial structural issue that needs to be understood if we are to see lawful dissent protected. Instead we see the concerted effort to accord unjust privileges to self-serving electoral machines which in the case of PM's party have shown a relentless desire, ever since he was elected in 1974, to push the country to new crises in order to safeguard and increase Liberal Party power. Some of us have not forgotten the events leading up to 1975!

Howard cannot control views that expose that reality because it is true that the Liberal Party is in receipt in enormous amounts of tax-payer funds to fight elections. So distractions are needed; moral panics are started about the ABC's lack of objectivity and bias.

But when will the Liberal Party NGO be subjected to the same criticism? Of course since tax-payer funds are used by "the other side of politics" as well, it seems that no criticism is needed, but both parties have combined in parliament to change the ballot in their favour. That is not objective and unbiased!

So far Howard has been successful in controlling, to a significant degree, the public reaction to the Labor Opposition. Howard has derived his own commitment to economic rationalism by trying to outdo the reforms initiated by Hawke and Keating. And his electoral appeal is very much based upon the fact that "the other side" can offer no alternative that dissents from the underlying economic rationalist principles. This is why Howard acts like the man who thinks he has all corners covered - and with Gary Johns heading up the enquiry into the ABC it seems as if, once more, he is off the hook and on another winner. Johns was a Keating minister after all, a former MP from what Howard calls "the other side of politics". In this case, this "other side" is simply one of Labor's (more virulent) varieties of "economic rationalism".

But what of the true "other side" of Australian politics, the side that is actually ignored by both Government and Opposition? Is there not a deep-seated opposition to the entire materialistic outlook that is now identified with the policies and programmes of the Hawke-Keating-Howard regimes? There is and it is this, next to the terrorist threat, that this Liberal PM and his Government most fear. Howard may want to smother dissent he cannot control; but from the way he conducts himself one has to conclude that the Liberal Coalition aims to establish the economic rationalist world-view as the underlying basis for BOTH sides of Parliament.

This also makes it more important than ever before for the Labor Party to admit its mistake and find a new economic approach. But will they? Their progress in this regard has been rather poor.

This is also why Gerard Henderson's polemic against the "leftist" ABC is missing the mark. Henderson's criticism avoids discussion of the structural problem created for all NGOs by the Parliamentary squashing of political dissent. His argument is a rather cheap shot aimed at the ABC's Murray Green and based on a worn-out "leftist" / "rightist" categorisation which ignores two decades of parliamentary history in which both sides have defended the economic rationalist ideology. One wonders where Henderson has been for 20 years. His view is that dissent to Government policy is "leftist" and this misrepresents the political reality for NGOs and the ABC.

Let's consider the problems which many NGOs, now in the firing line of Government threats, face? What are they to do, particularly when they cannot find their policies represented by economic rationalism's Parliamentary major sects? Their own charters require that they develop debate and discussion about economic policy and this must mean criticism of the world-view that dominates public life, the world-view endorsed by both Government and Opposition in Parliament. As public organisations they will be neglecting their lawful independence and mandate if they try to smother such criticisms and within their own organisations promote the Government's view. This is exactly why the ABC's defence merits public support. We can't say that the ABC is currently yet on the winning side, but on my reading they are fighting on the side of truth and public justice in an extremely difficult situation.

My 'expanded analysis' of this can be found by clicking here. Why dissent is under attack

Not a few Parliamentarians should be giving a bit of biffo on behalf of the ABC. This debate may give them an opportunity to invite a more open and self critical analysis of to their own privileged 'NGOs' (ie the ALP and Greens) and their parties' use of public monies to fight election campaigns.

Should not an inquiry be launched to examine how the rigged lower-house ballot paper is a denial of the principles underlying national competition policy?

What have these privileged NGOs done to promote electoral justice and overcome the ballot injustice, a ballot that seeks to avoid the possibility of conscientious dissent?

I suspect the Greens could handle this kind of self-criticism but Labor's Establishmentarian pretensions are still an enormous hurdle both to itself and more importantly to the country. If I could retain my own Christian dissent I would join a public coalition, led by Labor, which was committed to finding an alternative to economic rationalism. But as long as Labor sees itself as the means to encompass all genuine dissent, Labor's Parliamentary contribution is simply the outworking of a (losing) economic rationalist outlook. The country suffers. Labor has significant national leadership potential but it is passing it up because it doesn't want to admit it was wrong; it doesn't want to promote a dissenting alternative to economic rationalism.

And so dissent withers and democracy in any form is under seige. The big mistake the Labor Opposition made was to disagree with Albert Langer and go for a ballot which enshrines the Established squashing of lawful electoral dissent. That's not just and this is Labor's conundrum. Until Labor addresses it in terms of principle, true dissent will suffer, and the ABC's attempts to draw attention to dissent will continue to be in the firing line. May God give all true dissenters who seek public justice the strength for the long haul to turn this country around.

Tuesday, August 12, 2003

August 2003 © Christian Radical Reflections, is written by Bruce C Wearne (PhD), 29 Lawrence Rd., Point Lonsdale Vic 3225 AUSTRALIA, 61-3-5258-3913. Each edition may be photocopied or retransmitted in its entirety but not otherwise reprinted or transmitted without permission. This personal project aims to encourage positive Christian citizenship, the development of policies and political attitudes that better express our love for God and our neighbour. Your comments are welcome. Email can be sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au . http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bcwearne/index.html