What Makes Us Tick?
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 10:30AM 
With special guests:
- John Flanagan and
- Hugh Mackay.
The author of an interesting new book, ‘What Makes Us Tick?’ is Hugh Mackay, who is widely regarded as Australia’s preeminent social researcher and he joins us today to discuss his latest book. Hugh Mackay has spent most of his working life exploring why we do the things we do, ranging from the television programs we watch or the politicians we vote for, to the decisions that shape our lives - who (or whether) to marry, where to live, whether to have children, what job to do.
Written as part reflection, part psychological analysis, ‘What Makes Us Tick?’ is a highly personal account of the things Mackay has learned from the experience of listening to people talk about their dreams, their fears, their faith, their hopes, their disappointments, their frustrations and their fantasies. It makes for a most interesting interview and is definitely a must listen.
We open the show with a long overdue interview with well informed John Flanagan, who is the Deputy Registered Officer of the Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting). John speaks with passion about the proposed new Family Law amendments and claims that if passed by Parliament in its present form, the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 will significantly reduce contact by children with both parents after divorce/separation.
John makes the point that at first glance, there appear to be many more submissions supporting the Bill (in a ratio of approximately 2:1), but has observed that when studied more closely, many of the submissions supporting the Bill would appear to have been actually written by the same author.
He suggests this is particularly the case with regard to the many submissions commencing with the words “I am writing to express my support”. If this should be correct, surely some questions need to be asked such as, 1. is there a process of verifying the authenticity of submissions?, 2. what that proccess might be?, and 3. how does the AG propose to answer these claims of subversion of the political process?.
Editor