Location : Talks : Lenten2005 : Fitzgerald

If honesty doesn’t matter, then what does?

Robert Fitzgerald AM

Jesuit Seminar Series 2005
La Valla Hall, Marist College, North Sydney
2 March 2004

Tonight, I want to thank you and so many who have attended these Jesuit Lenten Seminars for your commitment to caring about the shape of our society and the values that underpin it. The overarching theme for this series of seminars is ‘Honesty matters - the ethics of daily life’ and I hope to share a few personal thoughts with you as to why honesty does matter.

I am reminded of a statement that Winston Churchill was reported to have made, that men often say they seek the truth, but when they stumble over it they pick themselves up and rush off as if nothing happened.

In many senses that is true of our society today. We are not sure whether we really want to discover the truth for it can be confronting and sometimes awkward to handle. It can challenge our preconceptions and even our comfortable way of life.

Truth and honesty are not easy issues for truth is often contested and, like beauty, said to be in the eye of the beholder. For all of us there are many times when we readily resort to a particular version of the truth - a white lie is often how we excuse it. For those in public life, matters are often far more complex and compromise necessary. There is in political and public life a degree of gamesmanship and bluff which is frankly necessary and relatively harmless. But that is far removed from the deception that has emerged in many jurisdictions and is present in aspects of public office throughout the world today.

The question posed as to whether honesty still matters is a fundamental one for each of us and our society today. Whilst almost everyone, if they were surveyed, would say they believe honesty is still very important , there is a growing sense and evidence that for many it matters less than previously or less than the meeting of other pressing aspirations.

My proposition is not that Australians have ceased to care about honesty or the truth, but rather that Australians seem to be increasingly more prepared to overlook dishonesty or permit a culture in which honesty and truth are not placed at the top of the values pyramid. If this is so then we have further questions to answer.

If honesty doesn’t matter, then what does? What has replaced honesty or the search for truth in our contemporary and prosperous society?

Of course, in Australia we continue to expend extraordinary resources on seeking what we believe to be the truth and maintaining a level of acceptable honesty. We have created many regulatory bodies and huge volumes of law specifically for such purposes. We also use many techniques to discover or seek out the truth.

• Investigative techniques are used by the police, corporate watchdogs, ombudsmen, auditors and regulatory authorities generally to investigate facts, issues or circumstances in order to elicit what the truth might be and to hold accountable those organisations or individuals who are found wanting.
• Adversarial techniques form the basis of our legal system where evidence and argument are tested rigorously in a formal framework in order to determine the truth or as close a version as can be ascertained. Whilst there are many critics of this system, and some would doubt whether it consistently delivers just outcomes, more often than not it appears to get it right.
• Discerning the truth – those in church affairs often say that they seek to discern the truth through prayer, thoughtful deliberation and the intervention or guidance of the Holy Spirit. Although, given some of the decisions and appointments one can only be left with the conclusion that God’s wisdom is truly bountiful, yet unfathomable, for nothing else could explain some of the outcomes.

It is also the case that we have not abandoned truth and honesty in its entirety but we have replaced it with a number of strange convenient versions. For the purposes of this presentation let me name just a few in my own crude manner:

• Half truth – where those in authority and others provide only a portion of the facts or evidence in order to mislead or deceive, whilst always giving a morsal of truth to give some credibility to the story.
• ‘I was never told’ truth – this is often called ‘plausible deniability’ which is a system often used by leaders to ensure that they are never told the truth, but they always know the truth.
• Selective truth – where we seek to be honest or truthful in certain matters but not in others, for example taxation matters, where the level of tax avoidance/minimisation seems to be a commonly accepted sport by many Australians, who would be deeply offended if you questioned their integrity
• Self truth – this is where ‘I believe it to be true, therefore it is true’ without trying to understand, analyse or even apply common logic or common sense to the proposition being put. In one sense this is the most dangerous position for it panders to misconceptions, prejudices and even outright discrimination. It could well be argued that many Australians during the divisive political and racial debates of the late 1990’s, about the relative advantages received by indigenous Australians believed much of what was being said because it fitted with their version of the truth even though it was false and deliberately damaging. Many Australians were prepared to accept the worst about refugees and newly arrived migrants without applying any test to the logic or common sense of what was being proposed yet, it fitted within what they wanted to or did in fact believe to be the truth.
• Silent truth - where the truth is simply buried or hidden in silence and is never spoken or discussed. For a short time after the first European settlement of Australia there was a period in which a form of reconciliation could have been developed between Indigenous Australians and the new settlers. But, as that rapidly failed, Australia entered the period of the Great Silence when the atrocities and dispossession of many indigenous people were never mentioned. There was no black problem for most white Australians, because the truth was never spoken, the issues were never raised. It was not until the early to mid 1900’s that the plight of our traditional owners was discussed or acknowledged in public policy forums or more generally. Notably, when the silence was broken some progress occurred, especially the Constitutional amendment in 1967 recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as citizens of this country.
  

Of course, we also have the lie and the big lie. It is often said that it is better to tell a very big lie than a small lie for you are just as likely to be found out and the consequences no more severe. Indeed some believe the bigger the lie the more likely it is to get away with it. The world today seems to have many very big lies in play. Only time will tell whether the truth will emerge.

Let me return to my theme that if honesty matters less, then what does matter more. Perhaps the answer lies in a very simple phrase that I read last year that ‘success has replaced truth as a virtue’, or put another way a that the pursuit of power and influence has replaced the quest for truth and honesty.

We too often see that the pursuit of political or material success or the quest for power within institutions becomes the main objective, with an increasing willingness to play with or distort the truth to achieve that goal. It seems to be a common wisdom that if you are successful , in those terms, then all will be forgiven and forgotten. We often hear the expressions “A can do leader” “He does whatever it takes”, “The end justifies the means” or in the cash for comment episode “I am only an entertainer”. One should be on high alert when such statements are made for often they are used deliberately to excuse what should be the inexcusable.

Yet, may I also suggest that the reverse is often true, that if one fails, then any indiscretions will be pounced upon and there will be a call for blood. Sometimes it seems that honesty only emerges in defeat and accountability only demanded in failure.

Too often the only difference in the treatment of those who have been less than honest is whether the end result was seen as successful or not. This however is no basis for the development of an ethical culture within institutions or a nation.

In Australia, like in many western countries throughout the world, regard for public, private and religious institutions have been in significant decline. In part, this decline in respect for institutions is directly linked to the fact that the community no longer has the same faith or belief in the integrity of those bodies and those who lead them.

A common element in institutional decline has been an increasing willingness for institutions and those who lead them to place honesty at a high level in the rhetoric that surrounds their policies or in corporate mission statements, but at a much lower level in the practices and operations of those institutions. The rhetoric is simply not matched in reality. As a consequence the public no longer belief that such institutions are genuine in their commitment to their stated values. Even more severe in some cases is that this ethical disconnect or outright contradiction leads to a dysfunctionality or breakdown in the workings of those agencies or organisations. The leaders expect their members, employees or followers to be ethical and abide by the often stated values of the institution, whilst they do not act with such integrity. Such mixed messages and standards corrupt and corrode the very inner workings of such organisations be they political parties, government agencies, businesses, churches or non profit bodies.

• Public institutions –notwithstanding that most engaged in public office and the public service strive to be people of integrity, public institutions are out favour with the community. People see in public institutions a growing contradiction between the goals of serving the public or common good and the practice of serving a much narrower set of self serving political or vested interests that take priority. They see in some, but not all, an indifference to honesty and integrity and a lack of genuine accountability despite all the arrangements now in place to encourage ethical conduct. Public institutions are under considerable stress in meeting growing and often competing and even contradictory demands. Yet such public institutions will continue to be treated with increasing disregard by the community unless their integrity is restored.
• Private institutions – the collapse of many prominent businesses over the last two decades including Quintex, Bond Corporation, HIH and, overseas, Enron, have all been accompanied by significant disclosures of dishonest conduct sometimes amounting to outright corruption, as well as commercial failure. The question that might well be asked that if these companies did not fail in commercial terms, would these dishonest actions have ever been acknowledged. If they had been profitable and delivered strong shareholder value, would we be lauding as corporate heroes the people who lead these organisations? Has success in business terms become the only criteria in our assessment of these organisations and their leaders to the detriment of valuing honest conduct? Or are we now prepared to acknowledge that unethical organisations ultimately become dysfunctional and unsuccessful, and conversely that ethical conduct contributes to successful enterprise?
• Religious institutions – the declining respect for churches has been marked over recent times. In part, this is due to the many appalling sexual abuse cases that have come to light and the current ongoing abuse and misuse of power in many churches today. Abuse is always a breach of trust and an ultimate act of dishonesty to the victims of such abuse and to all the followers of such bodies. It is also about the corrupted use of the term ‘justice’ which is exhorted liberally in relation to matters outside of church, but ignored or distorted when applied to practices inside religious bodies. Often the pursuit of power and influence by some leaders within religious institutions has overtaken the quest for truth and honesty. Protecting the status quo to advance the interests of a few and to play loosely with the truth can only further alienate many from formal religion.

Put boldly, where institutional leaders in public, private or religious bodies place success or power ahead of honesty and truth those very institutions are in peril.

The wider implication for the decline in placing real value in honesty and truth is its corroding effect on society as a whole. Once society no longer believes honesty is an achievable or necessary virtue then society itself becomes weakened and morally impoverished. Social capital has at its core the notion of a community built on relationships of trust. Once that trust is compromised then these relationships falter. Indeed the very social fabric of our community begins to unravel.

This evidences itself in many ways. Often, it is seen in the undermining of notions of justice and fairness with the consequent harsh treatment of those already vulnerable: the unfair treatment of refugees, unemployed people, indigenous Australians, and those on the margins. The pursuit of justice relies on the pursuit of truth and honesty. True justice cannot be based on falsehoods. It cannot be based on the acceptance or tolerance of the abandonment of honesty as a precondition for a prosperous yet compassionate and just society.

It is also evident when people disconnect from the political and democratic processes, disillusioned and cynical. Democracies require active and committed involvement to remain relevant and meaningful to their citizens. Disengagement allows vested interests to gain undue influence and control often to the detriment of many and especially the most vulnerable.

But let us be hopeful and believe that we can restore honesty to its rightful position as a vital ingredient in the prosperity and wellbeing of our society, and the institutions that serve it. History does give us some reason for such optimism with the greater exposure of many previously hidden issues concerning such matters as environmental degradation, racial discrimination, child and family abuse and many socially important matters that were often surrounded by secrecy and deception.

Looking forward what is needed:

• Personal conversion
  Institutions do not lie. Churches do not lie. Even governments do not lie. People do! Institutions can only act by and through the people that lead them or who are a part of them. Organisations act honestly or otherwise only because the people within them act that way. It is vitally important that we each accept a personal responsibility to an ethical way of life ,one that is based on the virtues of honesty and that is about developing trustworthy relationships with others. Leaders of institutions have a particular responsibility to be people who are themselves ethical, honest and believe in truth as a guiding virtue, for it is they who determine the actions and conduct of institutions.
• Ethical uplift in our institutions
  There needs to be a cultural awakening within institutions whether they be public, private or religious that rewards honesty not simply penalises dishonesty. An ethical framework requires a culture that respects honesty, rewards it and encourages it. It is a culture that accepts that success is reliant on the virtue of honesty, not undermined by it. It accepts that a moral compass is an important tool not only in people’s private lives but in institutional life as well.
• Public discourse and disclosure must be encouraged and entrenched
  There needs to be encouragement for robust and transparent discourse around public policies and major issues effecting our nation, our society and our faith communities. It is through the public and transparent testing of policies and ideas, and the exposure of decisions and the reasons for such decisions that we develop and nurture a culture of honesty. Abuse of power, just as other abusive conduct, needs secrecy to flourish. Robust public discourse and disclosure is critical to sustain a society that places a high value on honesty and accountability.
• Churches of integrity
  Churches need to respond honestly to the needs of the people they seek to serve both within their faith congregations and the wider community. They must deal with issues, such as abuse, with integrity. The survival of the institution itself cannot become the main game. The leadership that we seek in church is a moral leadership not just a leadership that talks about morals. It’s a leadership that believes in justice that is practised both inside and outside of the church community. It is a leadership that values honest and open dialogue and discourse about the issues that affect the institution, the faithful and the community at large, no matter how difficult or controversial.

Tonight, we have very briefly explored the proposition that if honesty doesn’t matter then other values or aspirations will take its place. Those alternatives will corrupt institutions and ultimately effect the very fabric of the society that we so value. In the end they effect you and me and the community within which we live.

We need to be a committed and courageous people. We need to assert our conviction that honesty does matter.

Honesty does matter if we want to restore faith in our public and private institutions and to create institutions that have high ethical values not just in word but also in practice.

Honesty does matter if we want religious institutions that can authentically preach and bring to life the truth reflected in the gospels, made real in our world today.

Honesty does matter if we want to be a people and a community that believe in justice, a justice based on truth and respect for all human kind but especially those who are at the margins of our society.

Honesty does matter if we wish to be followers of Jesus Christ who said “I am the way, the truth and the light”. If we believe His words then honesty really does matter.

Robert Fitzgerald AM is a Commissioner with the Productivity Commission.

print this page