Ethics survey
Truth in government:
Survey comments
Contents:
general comments
I believe the conduct of our leaders filters down through the community and has long-term negative effects. Lies, distortions of the truth and spin-doctoring have become the norm in politics, business, real estate and media - and it's a trend that worries me.
The principle of honesty underpins a society built on trust and co-operation around the difficult questions - once we lose faith in our politicians, the basis of democracy is fractured, leaving us open to even more blatant manipulation by those with economic and political power
Truth can be an elusive commodity. What is fact and what is the truth can be open to interpretation depending on where you sit, your social values and the accumulated knowledge that you have - it is not black or white as some in the media portray it to be. Just because someone makes an assertion or holds a differing view doesn't mean it is the truth. In many cases it is still a correct interpretation of slightly differing facts and values. The danger with the media debates and public discussion is frequently that all sides are not discussed and it can be inappropriate for this to occur. So while the broad principle is sound the practical administration can be fraught with difficulties and complexities and therefore open to party political manipulation to suit specific ends.
With truth comes integrity and trust, morals and ethics, without it how can you earn respect and have dignity?
There are occasions where truth may not be the best option. I feel occasions where misleading the public is justified would be very limited.
Research indicates that we all lie many times a day, although this includes "you look nice today, dear" and other forms of the 'white' lie. My point is - whether or not we are conscious of it, many of us make such value judgements regarding the sin of lying.
I think that there are lies and lies. Of course we should have truth in government and not tolerate deliberate false and misleading statements to Parliament or the public, especially if it goes to covering up crime.
Exploring what makes truth or its reverse is interesting. Does context provide sanction for omission or misleading information? Total truth, half truth to omission are real ethical considerations ie at what point does the means justify the end (Machiavelli). Is the maintenance of power and position more potent than integrity?
I believe in the principle of truth in government but politicians are also people and we don't say to ordinary people that they should never lie.
It is understandable that people will honestly get things wrong. However today's politician is to keen to only hear what they want to hear and what they want to hear is driven by getting re-elected. If they applied even the most basic standards of critical analysis or even corporate governance then some of these issues wouldn't be around.
There are three great difficulties to "truth in government". Firstly, the matters before governments are rarely black and white. Every issue will have many possible solutions, none of them perfect, and none without unwanted side effects. In this environment, politics is the "art of the achievable". That is, the need to make decisions which will produce a result that is hopefully beneficial for the greater good even if it is detrimental in a smaller way on some groups of people and/or parts of the economy.
Secondly, whilst democracy is better than any known alternative form of government, it is far from perfect. One of its down-sides is that it makes re-election the primary focus and first priority of every sitting government. Coupled with the shades of grey and the art of the achievable already mentioned, truth in government is inevitably going to lead to the suppression of certain material. This must stop short of lies, but as idealistic as we may wish to be, some facts will be suppressed even in a strict truth in government ideology, simply to gain an achievable result which does not damage re-election chances.
Finally, modern electronic media coverage of government has lead to the wretched "10 second grab". This is all the time given to politicians to explain policy and the reasons behind a decision. They do not have the luxury of a lengthy dissertation of the shades of grey, the pros and cons, the arguments and counter-arguments that were considered at length in the lead up to the announced decision. That is left to the learned columns of responsible newspapers, read by a tiny minority of the people.
Political life needs to be seen as a role fundamentally of service, where the common good is always in the forefront of one's thinking. it is the role also of political and other public leaders to extend people/societies/cultures towards greater values of selflessness and care for one another.
The Australian electorate has semi-consciously abandoned concerns of truth partly on a realisation that the previous commitment to truth and responsibility in the British system of ministerial responsibility was itself a lie, but they are now starting to realise that the act of abandoning of it has also involved huge costs. Never before have people been more aware of how little truth has to play in our political system. While the realisation is simple, the doing something about it is complex and difficult.
Direct lies and selective semantics have supplanted truth for many politicians.
national interest and truth in government
A truthful government, seen to be truthful is surely the ideal. Even decisions such as going to war, if truthfully explained and shown to be necessary will receive more public support. Truth in government is paramount in a democracy otherwise how can we make an informed judgement of any particular issue? No nation can achieve lasting economic or national security without truth in government.
The national security situation is the hardest dilemma to deal with; but actively lying to or misleading the public is unacceptable except in "hot war" situations. Being economical with the truth in such situations is acceptable only when the truth is revealed at the first available opportunity.
I prize truthfulness in government but recognise that there may be times when the government needs to withhold information to protect the overriding interest of an individual (safety, privacy in some cases) or the national interest. I don't think that there is ever a case for lying to the public.
In the limited cases where information needs to be withheld I would be satisfied to be told in the sort of broad terms above, why that was done.
How can we teach our children about truth if they are bombarded with information on the lies being told by those in highest echelons of government? I recognise the importance of national security which means that government can not always reveal a complete picture in case it jeopardises security. This is very different to deliberately lying to mislead the public!
Economic or national security are not valid reasons for not having truth in government. It is very easy for governments to consider that they know best for the public and not reveal the truth as it may harm their electoral success.
In the interests of national security, honesty is imperative. Dishonesty in government is an act of terrorism on the faith of the population and the integrity of the government of the day. I am a great believer in transparency in government. If we are considered fit to select our representatives, we should also be capable of knowing what decisions they are making and what issues they are facing. If there are matters which must be kept from us by our government - and the reasons would have to be massively watertight - we must be assured that these will be released to us after a generation. There is never a reason to lie. If a public representative is unable to disclose information that is all they have to say. Dishonesty is never required.
I interpret the term 'national security' to mean protection against externally sourced threats of physical harm to the nation's citizens. I do not mean it as protection from the arrival in Australia of refugees or persons without visas. Lying in the latter case seems only to be for political purpose.
There is the option of withholding information from the public to protect 'national interest' ie. security, until a safe time to reveal it - rather than outright lying. But I feel that the need to do that would be uncommon - and regardless of the need, the politician should always be held accountable and bear the consequences of such serious actions - to keep the occurrence of such action to a minimum.
I believe if the government approaches the Australian people with the goal of always being truthful and open, the country would not have too many worries about economics and security. Politicians should be accountable for everything they do in our name.
This is a difficult debate. If politicians were always truthful, would it negatively affect the economy or the country as people react inappropriately?
I have been brought up to believe that lying is "bad" yet I want to feel politicians are working in the country's best interest. However I feel they tend to work for their own interest.
In responding that truth in government is of higher priority than jobs, economic standards, national security etc., it is better for the politicians to be honest and say they cannot answer than to lie. Governments should never lie to gain community support to start wars or incite hatred against other races, etc ... this is what Hitler did. It is the role of Government to lead the community through providing the honest reasons for the proposed actions.
To mislead people in the interests of security or economics may seem tempting but this will just lead to fascism or dictatorship. Ultimately this will do more harm to the economy or security of a nation when the system collapses. I would rather take a short term loss on economics or security to ensure long term stability in democracy and a fair society.
In certain circumstances, to protect the lives of armed forces personnel or intelligence operatives posted overseas, for example, it may be acceptable for a government to avoid answering certain questions, or even misleading the public in some details, but generally speaking truth in government must be paramount in a democracy. Deception by politicians lessens trust - and respect for the political system itself, leading to less and less participation and ultimately less accountability. It's a vicious circle.
There are clearly difficult choices to be made and the forced choice of truth vs security or jobs (independent of context) illustrates the dilemma. It also illustrates that surveys can be blunt instruments.
public servants and truth in government
It's fine to self-righteously sit back and say that bureaucrats should be happy to sacrifice their careers in the interests of truth.
Public servants owe their loyalty to the public but going public should be the domain of politicians.
Thank goodness that a growing number of our public servants have now found the courage to be honest and are willing to accept the career consequences. Now it is up to us, the general public, to support them.
I say that public servants should give their primary loyalty to the public interest, but that is sometimes a judgement call that can be difficult to make. It is also difficult to say that when the personal consequences for the public servant in question can be devastating.
If ministers are prepared to blame their officials for untruths or the misleading of the public, they can surely expect officials to stand up for themselves.
Ideally, ministers must take responsibility and public servants must avoid public comment and give their prime loyalty to the government (they are being paid by the people to support the government elected by the people). But, if ministers chose, in the non-ideal world, to ignore this principle, then public servants must be allowed and expected to defend themselves, to expose the misleading politician, and to shift their loyalty from the minister (who has now betrayed his/her electors) to the public servant's best understanding of the electors' best interests.
The public service would be unworkable if every public servant felt obliged to make his/her own assessment of the public interest, particularly as most public servants do not have all of the information available to ministers or the ability to make policy decisions. ... It's a complex issue and time for a reconsideration of how to achieve truth in government.
It is the Government (and Opposition's) job to tell the Australian electorate what they think is in the public interest, ie tell us their policies. And is the Australian electorate's job to elect the government that best represents that interest.
It is not the public servant's job to decide what is in the public interest - defining what is in the public interest is a slippery issue anyway. Certainly public servants should provide advice to Government on the variety of 'interests' that exist in the public. However, public servants are obliged to serve, or give loyalty as you put it, to the elected Government of the day.
Ministerial responsibility and departmental advice without fear or favour are essential steps on the road to truth in government
Politicians, including the Prime Minister, are the servants of the people. There can be no circumstances in which lying is preferred to telling the truth. Once lying is permitted for any reason, then lying for self interest becomes all too obvious and easy.
Our system of executive government relies on public servants administering the directions of the elected officials. If the direction appears unethical to the public servant, they should be able to seek redress under Whistleblower protection legislation, but it would erode the confidence of the elected officials in their public servants if they were to be publicly challenged on their decisions and directions. A trickier question is that once a public servant has resigned, can they then speak publicly, given that they acquired information in a position of trust. Interrogation of Government by Opposition members is the way intended by our system of Parliamentary democracy to extract 'truth in government'.
The Westminster system has some safeguards of the truth, namely, ministerial responsibility and an independent public service. Unfortunately, both these safeguards have been damaged in the federal political sphere ... . If our elected representatives are not truthful with their constituents then we, the public, cannot maintain confidence in the government of the day and our current system of government.
penalties for lying
The penalty for not telling the truth should be commensurate with its impact. Public apology, standing down, loss of pension or some other imposition may be alternatives to resignation.
It may not be a question of people resigning over ever bit of misleading but (1) apologising when they do and (2) being exposed as liars if they don't. in some instances where the lie is significant, resignation may be appropriate. it would be better to try and 'codify' this a bit more than it is at present, because at present it simply relies upon political circumstance, ie how damaging to the government is the issue. it would be better, for example, to have an independent process of impeachment for limited occasions.
spin and the media
The major problem in modern government is the presence of "spin doctors." The irony is that they have been truthful enough to be called "spin doctors" - which perhaps shows the ultimate contempt they have for the public and the notion of truth in government because it is in our face, and, sadly, tolerated.
At one level, I think that politicians are such skilled communicators, that they are able to explain a lot of things from a lot of points of views. Being able to see different points of views is admirable, but it allows a politician to "spin" the line to suit an audience. This may not be "lying". But "lying" or exaggerating circumstances to suit political expediency is reprehensible.
The part that scares me more than politicians lying is the public use of the truth. I'm not confident in the general public/Today Tonight style journalism [has the] intelligence to cope with truths and 'panic merchants' can do more damage than some lies.
"Democracy" is the most easily manipulated system of government and it HAS been and ever-increasingly IS so manipulated by vested interests through the media they own and the politicians they control.
Without truth in politics and the media, democracy is a sham and will not survive in any real sense.