There's No "I" in Team, But There is in Hypocrisy

Over the weekend, I caught up with an old friend and, over a drink at the North Bondi RSL, we got to talking shop.  My friend works for a "global oil and gas major" - as they like to say - but you can hardly notice the horns on the top of his head.  He was bemoaning the lack of science in the "fraccing" debate, particularly here in Australia where the discourse of this topic has been over-ridden by the unholy trinity of fear, uncertainty and doubt.

If you rolled your eyes at the preceding sentence, then this article is just for you.

My friend's complaint was that the science simply does not support many of the allegations employed by the detractors of "fraccing".  His arguments and his evidence-base, I must say, are pretty comprehensive.  Maybe not conclusive (which is perhaps beyond the limitations of science in any event), but certainly worthy of fostering a genuine dialogue on this issue.  Yet, in this country, the fraccing debate is essentially over: for it is far easier to convince people, especially politicians, with fear than it is to do so with rationality.

My friend recounts stories of being assailed by other parents at children's birthday parties with well-parroted lines about his company's role in "killing the planet" (he jokes he might join Phillip Morris next).  To them he replies, "Did you enjoy your hot shower this morning?"  It's a good line that taps into an inconvenient truth that lays at the heart of much "green" rhetoric, where the debate about the environment is often configured as "the people versus the faceless evil corporation from central casting".  Us vs Them.  This was nowhere more evident that when the Gillard Government introduced the Carbon Tax - a tax, we were told, that would be borne by "the big polluters".  Them, the others.  But this distinction between Us and the corporations that serve us is not only arbitrary, it is a myth invented, ironically, to make us feel comfortable and allow us to continue our quest for consumption in unchallenged detachment from the consequences of our demands.  You see, by and large, it is not Them, the corporations, that are the problem, it is Us.

Corporations are not moral, but nor are they necessarily immoral.  They are, in fact, amoral.  This is not only all that we should expect of Them, it is all that is appropriate.  We are rightly critical and suspicious of any commercial organisation that claims moral authority or justification for what it does or what it would like to do (this is part, but only part, of the reason why so many of Us find Gina Rinehart unpalatable).  Corporations do not make moral distinctions, they (in the vast majority of cases) operate within the laws of the day to deliver us what we demand and, in doing so, make money. This "amorality", of course, necessitates the close regulation of commercial enterprise - for the best we can ask of them is to contest their game within the boundaries we set.  These regulations, and the intensity with which we enforce them, turn corporations into a reflection of ourselves.  To look into the face of corporate Australia is to see our own demands and social values staring back at us.  One cannot expect moral leadership from a reflection.  Change can only come from one side of the mirror.

Furthermore, from within the luxuries and comforts of a capitalist economy, we can and should question the laws and regulations under which organisations operate, we can and should question an organisation's ability to deliver to our demands (Ford Falcon anyone? No?), but we cannot question their desire to make money. It is, after all, the "profit motive" that has given to us so much wealth that we can, with straight-face and without hint of irony, demand our ridiculous comforts as god-given rights. O brave new world that has such people in it.

But the ugliness of our comforts, the stinking exhaust of the engines of consumption, is difficult to confront.  So we must externalise the blame for it.  It is not my insistence on living in air conditioned climate between 21 and 21.5 degrees, that causes coal to be burned and CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere.  No, that's not my fault, that's those "big polluters" again, destroying the planet for their own gain and that of their shareholders - which reminds me, I really must check how my superannuation fund is performing.  No, clearly, the blame lays with those corporations that are not making the changes that I'm not willing to make myself.

But none of this is to suggest that we should return to some kind of agrarian lifestyle or embrace the tenents of national socialism.  Our challenge is not revolution, it is simple self-awareness.  The awareness to accept our responsibilities, because the sense of responsibility begets change in ourselves - those gloriously insignificant changes that flow through democratic governments and market economies to change the world.  The awareness to recognise that we and our corporations live side-by-side, branches entangled, inside our glass house ... [fades to static]

Games of Silence

When my son was born, I posted the following comment on Facebook:

Introducing Benjamin: intellectual, athlete, artist and leader of men

Who me?

My wife and I are currently expecting our second child (although, I now think I’ve figured out what’s causing the problem) and this morning we were delighted to learn that the next addition to our family will be a girl.  This caused me to reflect on that I had written upon the birth of my son and ask myself: what am I going to say when my daughter arrives?  What are my aspirations for her?  How do I express that one of those aspirations is for her to feel free of stereotypical gender norms?  While on the one hand I do hope she grows up to be caring, sensitive and attuned to the needs of others, I don’t want to suggest that such qualities are essential only to being female.  I want her to be brave, smart and proud in equal share.

The Australian media, however, has no such qualms about reinforcing – even manipulating – gender stereotypes.  Yesterday, Prime Minister Julia Gillard introduced legislation into the parliament to pave the way for the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme or DisabilityCare, as it now to be known (they must have stayed up all night thinking of that name!).  As any feeling person would, when thinking about the human implications of this policy, the Prime Minister became emotional during her speech.  The shock of it reverberated around the country.  For anyone who doubted that “leadership” is still a highly masculinised concept, one only has to look at the political media’s reaction to Gillard speech. So incongruous is emotion to our conception of leadership that Julia’s near-tears became the story itself.  Furthermore, Julia was not only emotional, she was “choking back” tears – as a woman, obviously, she is not control of her emotions, they are control of her. Sue Dunleavy and Jessica Marszalek of The Herald Sun wrote of the PM’s “emotional outburst” as follows, “Ms Gillard's voice wavered and she had difficulty speaking because her feelings were so strong.”  Comments such as these were repeated ad-nauseum, with their common implicit theme of emotion over-riding rationality.  Comments that are almost complementary on the one hand, but, through the very way the incident has been sensationalised, really only serve to reinforce a masculine and clinical model of leadership, and a fragile conception of femininity.

Now, this approach to the reporting of the DisabilityCare bill may be an interesting, albeit somewhat academic, issue in itself, apart from one thing … It wasn’t even the most interesting aspect of the story.  Indeed, the News Ltd media could almost be forgiven for also playing up the “levy hike” angle, because at least that is something that has relevance and impact on people’s lives.  But even that slimy and manipulative angle was not the most surprising element to this story.  No, the one thing that raised my eyebrows as though I’d just stepped on one of Benny’s toys was the fact that the Opposition was almost entirely absent from Parliament for the bill.

Hello?

The Opposition’s absence raises many questions – the kind of questions that the commentariat generally like to get into a froth about.  Does it signal an underlying lack of support for or belief in DisabilityCare?  If so, what will happen when they are inevitably voted into office?  Was it simply crude political expedience to distant themselves from a tax increase, while, hypocritically, publicly supporting the concept?  If so, what will “the voter” make of this two-faced trickery?  Or perhaps most importantly: was the absence a vulgar display of a lack of respect for the disabled community, let alone disrespect for parliament, in that the Opposition were too busy with media engagements and self-promotion to be present for this bill?  The bottom line being that the Opposition’s absence from parliament yesterday provides enormous opportunity for the kind of speculation, hypothesis and “intellectual masturbation” generally loved by political writers around the country.

The silence has been deafening.

But, why?  Why has this angle been let go through to the keeper?  Apparently, a show of warm emotion from a Prime Minister is more spectacular than a display of petulance or arrogance or hypocrisy from an Opposition Leader.  It is perhaps telling to reflect upon which form of behaviour the media, through its selectivity, is condoning here.  One thing is for certain: I shall have to think very hard about the Facebook post for my daughter’s arrival, as what I don’t say might be as important as what I do ... [fades to static]

Take Me To Your Leader

Every so often, a nation faces a test of character.  There comes a decision-point that poses a question of values and priorities to our legislators, our business and community leaders and ourselves.  Recently, we saw Republican legislators in the United States fail dismally at such an examination when they voted down a series of moderate and widely-supported gun reforms (as discussed in my previous post, Under The Gun).  Australia is currently facing a test of its own and it is revealing some interesting insights into some our largest businesses.

Earlier this week, the Gillard Government announced a 0.5% increase in the Medicare Levy to help fund the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).  The need for and the benefits of the Scheme seem almost inarguable.  Either implicitly or explicitly, most of us recognise that the NDIS is a matter of fundamental human rights in that it seeks to re-balance (at least to some extent) the decades of disadvantage heaped upon the already fragile shoulders of disabled people in our community (themes explored in previous posts, A Poverty of Will and The Discretionary People).  Above and beyond the fact that it is simply the right thing to do is the finding from the Productivity Commission that the NDIS also represents a long-term economic benefit to our nation.  You would be hard pressed to find a policy that carries such a beautiful balance of fairness and economics.

The question, of course, has always been about the financial - how do we pay for a NDIS in the short-term? It is a fair question.  That question has now been (partially) answered.  Fascinatingly, beyond some cheap inflammatory commentary in the usual trash media (deliberately designed to bait and provoke), the response has been little more than a shrug of the shoulders from most or, often, rapturous applause with many proudly announcing their willingness to forgo the two coffees a week it would take for their most vulnerable fellow Australians to have a better shot at a fair-go.  Indeed, such has been the prevailing public sympathy for the NDIS that the Opposition, despite some initial sniping, appears to have read the wind and is on the verge of supporting the bill into law before the next election.

Well done, Australia!  Our community and legislators look like passing this test with character and morality in place.  It's enough to restore your faith and pride.

But, as the saying goes, there's always one, isn't there?

In this case the one is two: the CEO of Myer, Bernie Brookes, and the Chair of Wesfarmers, Bob Every,  who have criticised the proposed 0.5% increase on the Medicare Levy because of a potential, unproven, impact on their businesses and, presumably, bonus schemes.  Now, we live in a democracy and it is of course their right to voice an opinion on such matters.  But the comments by Brookes and Every come across as particularly hollow self-interest in the context of the acceptance of the levy increase among so many of those who are the ones who actually have to pay it.  This self-serving hollowness is particularly deep in the case of Wesfarmers, a company which has based its success on putting Australians out of business and out of work (in case you'd like to join the boycott of these companies, Wesfarmers retail interests include Coles, Bunnings, Target, K Mart and Officeworks).

No-one would debate that Australian retailers - big and small - face a number of key challenges.  Perhaps, the very reasons for the inability of our largest retailers to respond to the issues they face are revealed in Brookes' and Every's reaction to the levy increase.  That is, these comments just under-score the rank failure of leadership within our corporate retailers.

Brookes' comments could almost be forgiven as yet another inept action by a CEO who seems incapable of making a good strategic decision.  But, of course, the storm caused by his words just highlights how out of touch Brookes is with his market.  Any shop-owner in any corner store would tell you that it's not good business practice to antagonise your customers.  Myer will weather this tempest, but it will be just more damage to the mast of ship already short a rudder.

Every's comments shed even more light on how it is that such highly paid and, allegedly, intelligent people can be so out of touch.  Every is quoted as saying, "What we need to focus on is what we have to have, not what would be nice to have."    

Sorry, son, that wheelchair is a "nice to have".  We have to return it to Bunnings

These comments can only be described as dickish, particularly coming from the Chair of company that makes its money largely by selling things that are "nice to have".  They are born of a degree of privilege that us ordinary folk can only marvel at.  Herein lays the seeds of failure for our major retailers - it's not in taxes or levies imposed by government but in the segregation between the leaders of these companies and their markets - we, the people.  In my professional life, I have been lucky enough to work with many excellent CEOs and Directors, the best of whom never allow themselves to forget where they came from or that revenue is something to be earned every day and is not an entitlement.  Among our major retailers, forgetting where you came from and forgetting who serves who seems to be part of the job description. Perhaps, instead of pointing the finger of blame at the government who propped up these companies and their executive salaries during the GFC, our retailers and their shareholders need to take a good long hard at who they've put in charge of their ships.  The breathtaking misunderstanding of public sentiment on this issue and the seemingly hard-wired sense of privilege and entitlement with which Brookes and Every speak would suggest that they are ill-equipped for the challenges that face their respective organisations.  One might even say they have disabled their organisations ... [fades to static]