G'day again. Here's some great stuff on political and media ethics from Simon Longstaff, Executive Director of the St James Ethics Centre, on Meet the Press this morning. I agree with EVERYTHING he says, except on the Kernot/Evans affair, which I think Laurie OPakes was correct to report. The heated Webdiary debate on this one is at Your say on the Cheryl Affair, Sex and the politicians, Rights of reply and An affair to remember.



GREG TURNBULL: Some cynics see honesty in government as a contradiction in terms. Does it have to be that way?

SIMON LONGSTAFF: Well, it can't be like that. In a democracy, it ultimately depends on - all authority comes from the people and they, when they come to an election time, are supposed to give their informed consent. So if there are lies or misleading statements being made in relation to that it's impossible to give informed consent and as such, it is a fundamental attack upon democracy and I think that's why it's really important.

TOM ALLARD: So would you say that there is a crisis of ethics at the moment in the Government? We've had a lot of ministers - ah, sorry - former bureaucrats coming forward saying the Government isn't telling the whole truth. There is a real pattern here. I mean, what's your assessment from where you sit?

SIMON LONGSTAFF: I think there are a number of problems which we need to face up to, and it's not just in the Federal Government, but in all governments, I think - issues to do with the extent to which ministerial responsibility is effectively dead as a concept. I don't think ministers are responsible for anything except good news these days. If something wrong does happen they're going to say to people, 'Well, I wasn't advised, I wasn't told,' or whatever and there is the issue of competence in that as well. Also, the notion as to whether or not public servants are in a position to give frank and fearless advice as they're supposed to do.

TOM ALLARD: Well, you hear a lot from public servants that they only answer the very direct questions they're asked and if they have other relevant information on the topic, they don't offer it forward. I mean, as an ethicist, how does that strike you, that kind of behaviour which is endemic within the public service?

SIMON LONGSTAFF: Well, it is a basic failure of how the system is supposed to operate. We do want ministers to be making good decisions on behalf of the community. They can only do that if the full range of issues is presented to them. What you want, therefore, is a degree moral courage in the people who are in the public service, but you can only take that so far. I mean, in some cases, Tom, it is an absolutely heroic effort because you see the consequences for those who speak out are pretty terrible.

JENNIFER HEWETT: How much of an issue is this in the community itself? I mean, you've seen that John Howard's ratings in terms of trust have hardly moved at all, despite all this furore of the last four weeks. Why make such a big deal of it?

SIMON LONGSTAFF: Well, I don't know. The view of the community, I'm surprised by it. I keep on thinking that Australians are going to be uncomfortable about being manipulated by politicians of any particular political colour and yet I'm proved consistently wrong. So I don't know what's going on because just recently in the 'Herald' they were talking about issues of honesty rising to the top of the community's mind, particularly now that they've had stable economic conditions for 13 years. But I don't see the signs of it. So I really don't know. But it is important whether or not people are protesting in the streets about it. Maybe it is a quiet phenomenon which will come to the fore during an election campaign.

GREG TURNBULL: John Howard put in a plea through the week for a bit of, I guess, common sense or perspective in relation to this as if to say that honesty isn't a black and white issue and sometimes the complexity of Government needs to be taken into account. This is how he answered a question about his own honesty through the week.

JOHN HOWARD: Well, I have never deliberately set out to mislead the Australian public. We all make mistakes, but I have tried to be candid and honest with the Australian public - I have.

GREG TURNBULL: That's about as much as we can hope for, isn't it?

SIMON LONGSTAFF: That's a very good standard to apply, if it can be consistently applied. You do want people not only to have a disposition towards telling the truth, but you also want them to take responsibility when the system that they are ultimately responsible for is throwing up misinformation which they are subsequently making available to the community. And yet - I think - being realistic about it, when you're caught in a difficult situation there is a very strong temptation to guild the lily to try to put the best light on it. In Australia in politics, and in a number of other areas, we play with language in a way, so that we actually defeat the intention of truthfulness. We give a very precisely worded answer where you say, 'Of course, I didn't mean to say that.' I just think the general position about how the game is played actually causes problems in itself.

JENNIFER HEWETT: But people in the community certainly do want to know about character and part of that character seems to be how they behave themselves in private as well. Is that a concern to you?

SIMON LONGSTAFF: Well, it is a concern to me that we fail to make the distinction between what's in the public interest and what the public happens to be interested in. And we can go on a trial of explorational matters which are going to attract a lot of attention, but really don't advance our understanding about the way the political system works. I'm interested in people's character in terms of public office and there will be times when what they do in their personal life does have an impact upon that, but you've got to be pretty sure-footed in terms of making that distinction. I think the other thing about the public, though, is we have to take some responsibility for the way politicians deal with a whole range of issues. We are very unforgiving of politicians who are candid. I can think of a number of examples where politicians, who answered the question about tax policy or something like that, they've said they honestly think that it might be good to increase taxes or reduce taxes and they've been cut to ribbons for being mugs that they haven't got political sophistication. So we have to look at the way we deal with this, too.

TOM ALLARD: Let's talk about - sorry - I just want to talk about Ross Cameron and, I suppose, the ethics or morality of the media. You've got a guy here who has admitted that he was unfaithful to his wife and he's been - he's got a huge amount of coverage as a result of that and I guess the justification for the media is that this guy is a morals crusader. Therefore, his behaviour in private does have a relevance to what he says as a politician. Is that - do you reckon he is fair game?

SIMON LONGSTAFF: I think he is close to being, in that case. I mean, I think anybody who claims to be a morals campaigner, which I would never do myself, for example, is putting your neck in a noose.

GREG TURNBULL: You're an ethics campaigner.

SIMON LONGSTAFF: Yeah, I know. I'm absolutely - it would be fair play that I make as many mistakes as everybody else, so I'm not going to preach at anybody at all. If you're doing that, you do at least raise the question as to whether or not subsequent events prove you to be hypocritical. I suppose the thing is that we all make mistakes, and so part of the story in this case is a story perhaps of remorse and trying to make amends for what has happened. That is an interesting story. I think it possibly is relevant in this particular case. So much weight has been placed upon his starts in relation to these matters. But it's a very delicate thing. I think it's getting to the point now where it's going to really look more like just pursuing the story because of some salacious interest in his private life.

JENNIFER HEWETT: Are you saying it should really be some morals-free zone basically in relation to politics?

SIMON LONGSTAFF: No, of course not. No, I wouldn't say that at all, but I think that the issues to do with character can be discerned perfectly adequately in the way in which people conduct their public lives and that that's going to show through. And we should be able to find out these things by looking at what they say and do in that arena. There will be times - perhaps in the Cameron case - but we've certainly seen it in places like the United Kingdom, where the statements that the politicians make themselves invite the kind of scrutiny which has taken place recently. But issues of character are absolutely essential. Go back to Clinton. Why was that so important? Because here you have a man who is President of the United States who seems unable, after all of his history, to restrain himself - when everything is at stake. That mattered, not just because he had sex with that woman, but because of what it told about how you could be relying upon his judgment in matters of political importance.

GREG TURNBULL: But that's the 'if you'd cheat on your wife, you'd cheat on the country' argument. There seems to be little Clinton things happening all over the place. I think that what tends to happen in the Australian media is that it's covered salaciously and then you invent the public interest rationale for it later.

SIMON LONGSTAFF: Yes and it's selectively covered. I'm not in the press gallery, but I gather there are endless stories about the good and the great that circulate in terms of what they're doing or not doing. Some people get covered and others don't. It's an interesting question as to how that judgment is made by the media.

JENNIFER HEWETT: For example, Clinton would say that he was covered for - you know, he got himself into all sorts of hot water, that those types of principles that you're applying could equally apply to politicians in Canberra, once people know the truth.

SIMON LONGSTAFF: I agree. I think that in certain circumstances they can, but it depends upon what office they hold, to what extent it is actually proximate to things that they are In Clinton's case, he was in the Oval Office in the White House, engaging in presidential business at the same time. If that sort of thing was taking place within Australia, it might become a legitimate point of concern, but I would hate to see it become legitimised that you just go after a story - I mean, Kernot and Evans was a case where I think it transcended the proper barrier.