Wrongdoers will always exist. So regardless of how many rules of conduct or codes of ethics are in place, at some stage most organisations and institutions are likely to discover a certain amount of sleaze in their ranks. The really important issues are whether it is easy to bring such mischief to light, and what happens to those who are found out.
The motivations of the people who expose the mischief don't matter much. Perhaps, as John Laws is suggesting, the ABC Media Watch story about his squalid arrangement with the banks went to air only because "small spiteful people" were filled with "a desperate desire to make something of their lives by crawling out of their gutter" to destroy the king of talkback radio.
But if so, then more fool Laws. If he really believes that his opponents are totally consumed with envy of his success, he should have taken even greater care to avoid situations which might provide the means that would allow such people to pull themselves "out of their gutter". He may have convinced himself that his behaviour raises no ethical concerns, but it certainly raises questions about his own good sense and understanding of the Australian public.
And maybe the person who leaked to the Media Watch team holds a grudge against the Australian Bankers' Association, or some other outfit associated with the scheme to pay Laws a handsome sum to rethink his opinions about the banks. Corporate restructuring often produces disgruntled employees, and a confidential memo about an underhand $1.2 million scheme would present a wonderful opportunity for someone to really vent their spleen.
Positive social benefits may result from disagreeable motives, just as the most high-minded aims can lead to disaster. No doubt John Laws and the banks would like to discover the identity and intentions of the whistle blower; but for the rest of us such information is unlikely to change anything. The crucial issue is the relationship between Laws and the Australian Bankers' Association, and that seems all too clear.
I am not convinced that it is really necessary to have six separate enquiries into the matter. Whatever their outcomes, the credibility of John Laws has been severely wounded. He may still be able to entertain his audience and brighten up their day, but his chances of convincing them that they are getting reliable information and candid opinions are not so good.
And while the banks were obviously suffering from the bashing that Laws had been offering to his two million listeners before the deal went through, there are now many millions more people who have serious and justifiable doubts about the ethical basis of the banks' business practices. So just as politicians became much more careful about their expenses after the travel rorts affair, a great many corporations and broadcasters will be drawing some clear lessons from the present scandal.
But the most important lesson is that our system of democratic institutions, a free media and market oriented corporations ultimately provides a pretty good safeguard against deception. It may take a little time -- a few months in the present instance -- but clandestine schemes designed to mislead have a habit of coming to the surface. And when they do, the costs to those involved are often very much larger than the benefits they were originally intended to bring.
In other words, it is not difficult to achieve reasonable standards of ethical behaviour even in a society where saints are thin on the ground. What is necessary is the existence of effective mechanisms to channel and balance human self-interest in ways which will convince potential sinners that they are likely to do serious damage to themselves if they behave badly.
However, others have attempted to draw different lessons from the Laws affair. The Media Watch program has clearly proved its worth in this case, so some are arguing that the ABC and other government-funded institutions need more resources. But they forget that a desire for money is not the only root of wickedness, and that fraud and deceit are not confined to private enterprise.
One prominent academic writing in the southern press even suggested that private funding inevitably corrupts public debate, and attempted to tar think tanks such as the Centre for Independent Studies with the John Laws brush.
But I never made any secret of the fact that my financial backing comes from a wide range of individuals and companies, including banks, the mining industry and other important sectors of the Australian economy. The funding is structured to ensure that no company or sector is in a position to exert undue influence over my activities, and all major publications are vetted by outside experts.
Certainly, there have been a few occasions in the past when financial supporters have indicated that they would like me to take a certain position on a particular issue. But such requests have always been resisted. This is not because I am necessarily more virtuous than my righteous opponents.
Were I to allow the expectation of funding -- or the threat of its withdrawal -- to tempt me into changing my arguments and assessments, this would eventually come out into the open, and I would be finished as a researcher and a commentator. These considerations apply to any public intellectual, and especially those which ruffle feathers by challenging the fashions of the intelligentsia.
Nevertheless, all citizens, irrespective of their social or political beliefs, have an interest in ensuring that promises of money, power, or other inappropriate rewards are not used to obtain a particular opinion from a public commentator. By unintentionally causing such a serious issue to come out into the open, John Laws and the Australian Bankers Association have done us all a favour.
No comments:
Post a Comment