| Review of: | Terms of Trust: Arguments over Ethics in Australian Government by John Uhr |
|---|---|
| Reviewed By: | Brian Head |
| Reviewed in: | Australian Journal of Public Administration |
| Date accepted online: | 25/09/2006 |
| Published in print: | Volume 65, Issue 2, Pages 110-124 |
Book Reviews
John Uhr's new book seeks to show, in theory and practice, why democratic governance is inherently a journey rather than an accomplishment. The journey involves many challenges and choices, and conflicts between competing approaches.
Professor Uhr's argument proceeds on several levels, beginning with the 'big picture' context. Democratic governance, at least in mature and stable systems like Australia, is seen as an ongoing contest between two approaches, centred respectively on power and values. On the one hand, the
On the other hand, the second approach to democratic governance takes a more balanced and considered view, more in keeping with Professor Uhr's own position. Prudential leaders see themselves as having responsibility for ensuring the long-term vitality of democratic values - such as fairness, legality, integrity, accountability, public duty and self-restraint. This
Prudential and principled leadership, respecting the value-base of democratic institutions, is thus seen as the solution to the endemic problem of low public
Uhr includes several examples detailing recent events in which ministers, their staff, and senior officials have displayed a less-than-exemplary standard of honesty and transparency. He also includes a substantial analysis (ch. 7) of how governments around the world tend to override ethical behaviour and tolerance in the face of 'national security' considerations.
The challenge presented to our leaders is thus to earn (and continually re-earn) the confidence and trust of the community. This argument provides the basis for reinstating ethics and values as the foundation of democratic governance. These are indeed the 'terms of trust'. The integrity and character of leaders is crucial for setting the tone of public life. The breakdown of public trust is linked by Uhr to the lack of willingness (by public office-holders) to take responsibility and to behave honourably.
It is not just a handful of ministers and top officials who need to demonstrate integrity, but all the senior public servants (who set the tone for the public service generally) and anyone else who works in the name of public office-holders, eg, ministerial staff (who currently escape responsibility and external accountability).
One of the mechanisms for enhancing the ethical base of public life include codes of conduct, codes of ethics, professional standards, disclosure provisions to avoid conflict of interest, and so on. Uhr provides an interesting and detailed account (ch. 6) of the evolution of Australian public service documents on values and codes. He draws a useful distinction between approaches that emphasise taking personal responsibility (i.e. internalising the values and principles) and approaches that emphasise rules for conduct (i.e. specifying those actions that are unacceptable).
We probably need both, perhaps because different people need different kinds of guidance, but also because situations carry different kinds of risks, and needs for precision. Uhr is clear that a reliance primarily on compliance with rules could threaten to hollow out the value base of institutional practices that are supposed to guarantee democratic governance.