• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Cynicism imperils politics

by Simon Longtaff

Revelations on Wednesday [September 1997] of the involvement of former federal ministers John Sharp and David Jull in the latest round of politicians' travel rorts have raised questions of fundamental ethical importance for our style of government.

And federal Science Minister Peter McGauran's admission yesterday that he also wrongly claimed travel allowance shows just how volatile and difficult an issue this is for John Howard.

By all accounts, federal Parliament received news of the resignations of Sharp and Jull in an unusually sombre mood. At once, the familiar image of the pack baying over the blood of a wounded and defeated minister was replaced by that of a reflective group of ordinary men and women witnessing the painful, yet dignified, acceptance of responsibility.

None of us should take any pleasure in the failure of another person and, for this reason alone, it was important that the nation could see our politicians relating to the human dimension of this occasion. This was not just the end of yet another political skirmish.

But, beyond this, the relative speed with which events unfolded signalled the possibility that the Government, under the leadership of Howard, has finally decided to address the difficult task of rebuilding public trust in the political process. If this is so, then the personal cost to those most closely affected by these events will not have been in vain.

Most politicians are honest people who sacrifice many of the benefits of private life in order to serve the public good. Yet, for all this, they are not trusted. No matter how unfair or unwarranted the judgement of the community might be, the reality is that in Australia most politicians, together with the institution of government, are perceived through the corrosive lens of cynicism.

This is not just an inconvenient or unpalatable fact of life. It is a matter of fundamental importance: where people no longer trust and respect the law-makers, there is a grave risk they will no longer trust and respect the laws they make.

This is one of the most important reasons why so many people have been calling for a higher than usual level of probity from our politicians.

A proper regard for the need to address this issue of public perception is, for the reasons outlined above, an important matter. But it is only a first step and whether or not these recent events represent a true and lasting turning point will depend on several other factors.

Most of us can recognise the value of personal sacrifice in the service of an important principle. As such, we can understand why a person who genuinely believes in their own innocence might, nonetheless, decide to accept an unusually harsh penalty for what was, in effect, an honest mistake.

If the Auditor-General's independent inquiry determines this to be the case in relation to the actions of Sharp and Jull, then each will properly be regarded as having acted with great courage and nobility. If, on the other hand, they are found to have acted improperly, then the manner of their resignations will come to be seen as one of the worst examples of mock heroics.

In relation to the Prime Minister's role, much depends on his motivation when acting in this matter. If he genuinely believes that his ministers acted improperly, then his actions must be supported. If he sincerely doubts that they did anything wrong but still believes that it is in the best interests of the country, as a whole, that the highest standards of probity be seen to apply, then that too should be noted with the measure of approval it deserves.

The danger is that Jull and Sharp have been cruelly sacrificed on the twin altars of public opinion and political expedience. If this is so, then public cynicism is likely to deepen and the anguish of the two former ministers will have been for nought.

Even to suggest the possibility of such a motive may be seen as grossly unfair. But there is no point in pretending that this thought has not surfaced. Furthermore, the fact the Prime Minister's office had been advised of discrepancies in the records as early as May will not help convince people that this possibility should be set aside entirely.

It is in the light of these considerations that Howard's public comments on the whole of this matter must be noted. Speaking on Sydney's 2UE, the Prime Minister made the crucial observation that the obligation he owed the Australian people “is more important than the ministerial career of any individual in my government”.

Should these sentiments prevail and consistently be evident in future practice, then Howard will have taken the crucial first step on the road to restoring trust in the political process and the institution of government.

Such a road is always steepest at the outset. Hence the extra effort makes it tempting to rest along the way or even turn back. But I would argue that politicians owe it to themselves, as much as to the community, to accept the challenge of the high road.

We should never forget that our politicians are, in the end, fellow citizens and that we all have feet of clay. As such, we should be prepared to support their efforts in this direction by modifying our cynicism in favour of a healthy and good-humoured scepticism. Then, perhaps, mere folly will attract a measure of forgiveness rather than fury.

discuss this article

---