Ever since Helen Clark became Prime Minister (well I did religion yesterday!) the plan of attack by politicians when something goes wrong is to go on the attack. Murray McCully, the Minister of RWC2011 did it on Friday when 2000 people got caught on trains. The Transport Minister Steven Joyce joined the fray soon thereafter. Mayor Len Brown was left to take responsibility and made appropriate signals that Auckland Council would look at compensating those who didn’t make the opening ceremony.
If leadership is about being the loudest voice then central government politicians won hands down. In the crush on Friday night in Quay Street I felt part of something pretty big and powerful. People were in good humour and although it was a bit overwhelming it was worthwhile to experience it first hand. Unfortunately those people we saw from the bus on the stalled trains on Tamaki Drive on the way back, didn’t look like they had such a good experience. There were lots of loud voices in Quay Street, Hakas, cheering and laughter. If the loudest voices were the best Rugby players then Tonga and Samoa would be meeting in the final based on support in town on Friday.
But the loudest voice isn’t always the strongest leader. What will come to repair the image of a failed transport system (and stop it failing again of course) will come from leadership that looks at itself, takes responsibility and leads to new action. I get a sense that’s been happening after the initial crush in the rush to blame.
Us ordinary folk took the lead and used public transport. Maybe it’s time for those pointing fingers to give it a shot too. That would be another type of crush that they could learn from.
When something is wrong with an organisation’s culture it’s easy and defensive to blame those that found out about it for not doing a proper job, or for someone reporting it. When that happens you’re on a slippery slope to defensive nowhereland. Time to retire probably.
On the other hand for Marshall to publicly state there are pockets of officers who don’t get it, who need to or go, is gutsy to start with and in the end absolutely the best thing he could do for the police.
He won’t root out all the officers himself, but clear unambiguous statements from the leader of such an important organisation in our society are critical to success. Other police leaders should be in no doubt as to what is expected.
As I said in my previous blog, there shouldn’t be any tolerance for the sort of behaviours identified in the report. I hope we’re getting back on track with all our police.
“There is a lack of faith in Police leadership because rhetoric does not always align to action” reads the second to last sentence of the body of the latest report into the police’s change management programme following the Commission of Inquiry into police conduct.
Commissioner Broad in his blog commenting on the unfortunate negative focus of the report, records himself as satisfied as to progress on the culture issue. Police union boss Greg O’Connor says that this report will to more harm than good.
My latin scholar son Thomas would be proud of me: argumentum ad consequentiam meaning X is true/false because of how much I like/dislike its consequences.
So is the report wrong? A listing of things ticked off as Commissioner Broad has done on his blog and Greg O’Connors “telling bad news will only do harm!” is enough to convince me all is not right. Then there’s the report.
I’d like to see leadership from the police and its union that even occasionally acknowledged that they aren’t perfect. Then we’d know that there was a willingness for change. If every problem is minimised as a bad apple or “we’ve already got procedures in place to cover that” or “it was the fault of the other driver” then we can be sure that nothing is changing.
Because the first step in changing a culture or for that matter, a behaviour, is to want to. And that means accepting that what’s going on is wrong.
The police should reflect our tolerant, secular and largely peaceful population. Not the bullying and harassment that is obviously still happening inside the police – even if it’s only in small numbers it’s not good enough. If we can’t trust what they do with each other, how can we trust them to deal with us?
So, sorry sir, I’ll be issuing you an infringement notice – even one act of carelessness like this can cause a tragedy.
The government has decided to get tough on those who seek name suppression because it’s not fair on those that don’t and justice should be administered publicly and in a transparent manner. Seems sensible enough, though, and I’m no apologist for the rich and famous, most of the time it’s only the most serious of crimes that are reported, unless you’re rich and famous.
In my work with organisations, the biggest problems in change or crisis arise from lack of transparency. When leadership is transparent, whatever the message, it is better received and the grief associated with change is shorter and less intense. Confidence comes from transparency.
Which is why the complaints and investigations about Supreme Court Judge Wilson being publicly aired are very important for our confidence in the judiciary. This judiciary that will monitor and lead the government’s intentions on our behalf on name suppression.
I see today that the government has settled an arrangement with Judge Wilson that sees all action stopped and a payout to him of nearly $1 million. The reason given by “cause and effect thinker” Judith Collins is that “To proceed with this case would have caused incalculable damage to confidence in the judiciary”. What can that mean? That we will keep hearing about Wilson’s alleged inappropriate conduct? That it will remind us that there is a judge who it is alleged did not act appropriately? That we might find a judge guilty of a conflict of interest?
If the cause of this problem is the alleged lack of candor on the part of a judicial officer, then this drop it and hide it solution takes you straight back to the cause. It’s a lesson for us all on the perils of linear thinking, hiding to avoid the hard questions and in this case, hypocrisy.
We know Judge Wilson’s name, we know what it’s alleged he did, but those that lead him and us in a transparent justice system for all have suppressed for ever the ability for us to know whether or not something was sick in the courts. Or that’s what they intend.
Actually we can see now there is something very wrong. And it’s not just one Judge.
Unintended consequences. You gotta love ’em!
ps I haven’t gone permanently political on my blogs! Sometimes things just hit you. Hard. I wrote about government transparency over a year ago too.