Noel, Justin --- "Does Good Governance Equal Good Outcomes?" [2007] IndigLawB 5; (2007) 6(24) Indigenous Law Bulletin 20
Does Good Governance Equal Good Outcomes?
by Justin Noel
Governance. The very word conveys a sense of gravitas and importance. It is, however, in my view one of the most overused and misunderstood terms in the current social and political discourse surrounding Indigenous people and organisations in Australia.
Before commencing I would like to acknowledge that it is very easy in a sterile piece of prose such as this to appear knowledgeable and sage-like. Practicing good governance is anything but simple.
The use of the term ‘governance’ now encompasses everything from ethics and moral behaviour to financial literacy and workplace legislation. The implicit assumption is that there is one standard behaviour model that is acceptable in all circumstances, regardless of context, timing or capacity. This provides a rich vein to tap when one wishes to vilify an individual or group.
Governance is now regularly used not as a standard to be achieved but as a stick with which to berate or condemn.
Governance is about making decisions and then owning your role in them. Without the second part of this clause it is too easy to claim that ‘the majority was too strong’, or that ‘there was no prospect of change’, or that ‘I didn’t know enough’. It is beholden on all of us involved in governance to own our decisions and to actively question why we may choose to make a stand on any given point; argue for a cause; submit a grievance; comply with the mood; adhere to the consensus; or stand aside.
Rather than re-creating an idiosyncratic definition of governance I would like to refer to one given by Professor Mick Dodson as I feel that this clearly and concisely captures the essence of governance:
‘Governance’ is about power, relationships and processes of representation, decision making and accountability. It is about who decides, who has influence, how that influence is exercised and how decision makers are held accountable. ‘Good governance’ is about creating the conditions for legitimate and capable decision making for collective action about a community’s affairs. It’s about robust and accountable decision making at a collective level with transparent grievance processes that protect privacy. There is no single model of good governance by Indigenous communities, it is a matter of different structures and processes suiting different communities.[1]
Despite the above definition there appears to be very little room for nuance in the current public and political mindset. It a claim of ‘poor governance’ or a need for ‘improved governance’ is raised, the automatic implication in the minds of most people is that there is something fundamentally wrong with the small management group, the organisation or in many instances an entire community.
There is, however, an important issue concerning governance in the Australian, and indeed international, community. Witness the ‘failures of governance’ which graced every form of media throughout 2005 and 2006:
• Australian Wheat Board Royal Commission.[2]
• HIH collapse.[3]
• One.Tel collapse.[4]
• The (recent) Fiji coup.
• James Hardie’s corporate manoeuvrings surrounding the asbestos fund.[5]
• Vivian Solon’s deportation.[6]
• (Near) appointments to the Reserve Bank.[7]
• Intelligence surrounding the Iraq War.
And most recently:
• The twisted legal and political machinations surrounding the death of Mulrunji in Palm Island.
I raise these examples not as a means of deflecting attention from Indigenous communities and our needs for good governance but rather to highlight the fact that poor governance is very much a broader and more significant issue; an Australian issue.
Common discourse around governance appears to be primarily based on the ‘blame spectrum’: Ignorant-Inept-Corrupt.
The problem with governance is that it usually becomes an issue of apportioning blame – as though this was a simple process. We tend to make assumptions very quickly indeed and, because we are human, rigidly stick to our opinions as though they are backed by solid evidence. It should be remembered that very few of us have the opportunity to actually get inside an organisation or witness first-hand board deliberations. This is a paradigm fraught with power inequity issues.
Even those of us privileged with this access (elected, invited or imposed) are still inclined to make judgments concerning motivations of individuals or pronouncements regarding their character. Whilst this very human response is essential to making connections, it is nevertheless replete with dangers if we do not regularly take stock of our own preconceptions; our own presumptions; our own prejudices. Corrupt or inept behaviour, as exemplified by the preceding list, is by no means the purview of a single group within Australian society. We must work diligently to ensure that this does not develop further.
Governance must be placed within an historical timescale if it is to be relevant. This acknowledgment of history is important because it fundamentally alters where we choose to place people or organisations on the ‘blame spectrum’, and how social and intellectual capacities are framed. Put simple, we have an ill-defined number of chances to ‘stuff up’ before we should ‘know better’. At the risk of being controversial this strikes me as being akin to the notion that by simply re-incarcerating recidivist criminal offenders they will somehow ‘learn their lesson’ or ‘decide to be a better person’ or maybe ‘give up’ via an ephemeral osmotic process undeterred by prison walls.
Organisations do not magically become good governance models. It takes years of pre-incorporation work, late nights attending meetings, and discussions with interested parties. The (expensive) act of developing a policies and procedures manual or business plan no more guarantees the viability or ethical behaviour of an Indigenous organisation than it does the myriad corporate and government structures.
It should be remembered that most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with governance functions are doing so in a voluntary capacity. This is a critical point, particularly in 2007 with the proposed changes to the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 (Cth) to be promulgated, thereby bringing Indigenous governance at the federal level clearly in line with corporate governance principles and responsibilities. However, most members of Indigenous boards of management or committees are members not for financial gain but for altruistic or intangible reasons.
It should also be noted that there is no one single overarching governance model crossing the myriad of federal, state and territory incorporation and reporting legislation. Far too often we hear statements such as ‘I know the constitution and this is how we should do it’ or ‘I’ve been on council for 20 years and this is how we have always done it’. Unfortunately, experience with a land council corporate governance structure, no matter how genuinely held, is often diametrically opposed to those of a co-operative or limited company. Simply because it is what one is used to does not mean that it is accurate or valid in the current circumstance. If there is one line of caution to members of boards and committees it is this: ‘Make sure that your actions, votes, decisions, quorums, minutes, records, etc meet your specific organisation’s requirements on that day.’ Or perhaps more bluntly: ‘Never trust someone’s verbal advice without reference to a written backup or document’. There is a world of difference between saying something and proving it. In a predominantly oral culture replete with stores and yarning, this is clearly a long-term challenge.
Motivation under a corporate paradigm is primarily related to monetary wealth, accumulation of assets or increasing social position. In the Indigenous governance sector the assumption appears to have been that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do indeed have a higher bar to jump. Community organisations are continually running the funding gauntlet (regardless of whole-of-government arrangements) yet are also expected to identify individuals with skills and capacity, convince them to participate and maintain a degree of consistency across funding and reporting cycles (which rarely coincide).
There is nothing more amazing in facilitating groups and mentoring than seeing experienced Indigenous people (or young ones on the way up) come to recognise that they do have skills, they can understand complex issues, and that they have a right to ask questions and challenge prevailing views. The social, intellectual and emotional capacity of Indigenous people is astounding and what is critically needed is consistent opportunities for them to be validated in the skills they have, learn new extensions of those skills, tackle critical skill deficits (which we all have), and reinforce the value of their cultural, familial and community experience.
This leads me to a fundamental tenet that has informed my work and interactions with people over the last 20 years (I don’t think I really knew anything at all until I was into my 20s): Knowledge does not change behaviour.
This may go against the prevailing social marketing models in Australia but if it were true none of us would smoke, no one would exceed the speed limit, no one would forget to update their address on the electoral, and no one would ever eat a Chiko Roll. Knowledge is a part of the equation for successful governance but it is not in itself the answer. What I believe is: Attitude changes behaviour.
There are many factors determining attitude, whether that be the level of education, access to training, ability to read a balance sheet (or perhaps that should be the ability to understand a balance sheet), literacy, technology and so on. These ‘concrete’ factors are essential and often fall into the ‘knowledge’ category. For many of us, attitude often relates on any given day to the amount of sleep we have had, our internal emotional barometer and, as with myself, the critical blood-caffeine level.
In addition I would argue that many decisions in organisations or management are based on esoteric factors such as fear, confidence, comfort, breadth of experience (rather than depth), and finally that underlying requirement of any government model: trust.
Governance cannot operate without this nebulous concept of trust. Trust in one’s own actions, trust in one’s fellow board members, trust in one’s managers, trust in one’s staff, trust in one’s advisers, trust in one’s accountants and lawyers (usually the penultimate weigh station in any governance issue), and trust in one’s fellow human beings to act with honour and honesty.
We need trust. Without it we would merely be a collection of competing lists and statistics (possibly a utopian notion for left-brain dominant savants). Trust is inherent in our human relationships; it enables efficient decisions to be made, affords effective advisory avenues, and ultimately, allows a management board to get on with business.
Most of the governance training in this country, including that for Indigenous people, is predicated on the notion that knowledge leads to understanding which leads to good practice. Trust (and knowing when to trust) is not overtly discussed. Yet it is this very concept that so frequently emerges in governance cases (including breaches of fiduciary duties, and corporate mismanagement). Relationships are the bedrock on which good governance is built. But a relationship implies at least a two-way conversation requiring respect.
There are important differences in communities just as there are differences in company structures and corporate values. This needs to be recognised. An Indigenous community organisation in a remote rural setting is likely to have starkly different priorities to an organisation in a major metropolitan suburb. Or is this really the case? The external features may differ (eg, urgent need for generator fuel versus urgent need for community transport) but the underlying reasons for operation are remarkably similar. Where basic service needs are defined, it is how we prioritise and achieve them that provides the unique diversity between communities.
Governance is about asking the right questions at the right time. The following checklist provides a simple and short framework by which board members can assess decisions, gauge discussion and develop an intuitive feel for simple governance practice:
• What values are driving decisions?
• Who decides in reality?
• Who benefits from this decision?
• Which rules are actually being followed?
• How urgent is this issue or decision?
• Which rules are actually being followed?
• How urgent is this issue or decision?
• How current is the information?
• How is dissent or differing opinion managed?
• How do you check that you are getting correct advice?
• Are we acting through emotion or analysis; heart or head?
And finally…
• If I were corrupt, what would I do? (Be prepared…)
• If I were ashamed, what would I do? (Be empathetic…)
• If I were confused, what would I need? (Be solution-oriented…)
• If I had to explain this decision, could I? (Be community-focused…)
Justin Noel is the Managing Director of Origin Communications, a specialist company providing information, training, research and facilitation services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, organisations and related agencies. Justin is an Aboriginal man of the Dhungutti and a skilled facilitator and communications consultant.
[1] Dr Mick Dodson, ‘Capacity Development for Indigenous Leadership and Good Governance’ (Paper presented at the Building Effective Indigenous Governance Conference, Northern Territory, 7 November 2003) <http://www.nt.gov.au/cdsca/indigenous_conference/web/html/abstract_27.html> at 2 February 2007.
[2] Commonwealth Inquiry into Certain Australian Companies in Relation to the Oil-for-Food Programme (2006) <http://www.offi.gov.au> at 5 February 2007.
[3] See <http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/econ/hih_insurance.htm> .
[4] See <http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/ASIC_PUB.NSF/byid/CA256AF60076AF11CA256AF60080CEC4?opendocument> .
[5] See <http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2004-05rn12.htm> .
[6] See <http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/annual/2004-05/reports_by_external_bodies.htm> .
[7] ABC Radio National, ‘Opposition Challenges Treasurer over Reserve Bank Appointment’, PM, 29 November 2005 <http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1519410.htm> at 5 February 2007.