Trust and Public Institutions
By Allan Myers - Australian Polity - Volume 2 (Number 2)
I have spent most of my working life as a barrister. I have advised clients about the application of the law to their affairs and I have appeared as an advocate in the Courts. My public life has been confined to one public office, that of President of the Council of Trustees of the National Gallery of Victoria.
As a practising lawyer, I have long understood the importance for society that the great majority of the citizens must have a high level of confidence in the fairness of the laws and of their administration by the Executive Government and the Courts. Without that widespread confidence, the foundations of society will be unsteady.
When I became President of the Council of Trustees of the National Gallery of Victoria, I was struck by the public interest in and esteem for the National Gallery of Victoria. I soon noticed that if the Victorian Government wishes to impress a visitor or if there is to be a reception for an especially distinguished person, then the preferred venue is the National Gallery of Victoria. Outside government, many wish to be associated with the NGV.
The NGV may be thought by some to be high brow, but by everyone it is perceived as an institution of impeccable integrity. That got me thinking about why it was that the NGV is so esteemed and what it is about that particular public institution that commands the trust of the general community. It also got me thinking about an increasing lack of trust in public institutions generally.
I am indebted to Baroness O’Neill, the Cambridge philosopher, who addressed this issue in her BBC Reith Lectures entitled “A question of trust”, and whose work I draw upon in this article.
Let us think for a moment about institutions of society: the Parliament, the Courts, hospitals, universities, churches. I doubt that there is any of us who thinks that any of those institutions is trusted as it was a generation ago. So it is with the office holders in those institutions. We do not need the results of polls to be satisfied that levels of trust are not what they were a generation ago. Equally, I believe none would say that trust in the important public institutions is not crucial to the effective functioning of society.
Rights and Duties
I would like to talk about three topical matters which are connected with the question of trust in public institutions: the emphasis on rights and entitlements, accountability and transparency. I suggested that we think there is a marked absence of trust in public institutions compared with, say, a generation ago. At least people say they trust less and believe others trust less. The first thing to notice is that, whilst many say that they do not trust the Parliament, the Courts, hospitals, and other institutions, this is often not reflected in some aspects of behaviour. The level of use of the facilities of many public institutions has not declined. There has not been a reduction in litigation: the Courts are, it is often said, overwhelmed with work. There is immense public demand for new or altered laws to solve every social problem. Why is it then that people say they have less trust?
When I attended the Dunkeld State School in western Victoria almost sixty years ago, my schooling was according to very clear principles. (I still have the Victorian State School “readers” on the shelves of my study at home: what a splendid selection of works to introduce a child to the central elements of the culture of the society!) One of those principles was the inculcation of the idea of individual civic responsibilities.
We were taught by precept and example that we were expected to contribute to the life of the community by hard work, in particular, voluntary work. The emphasis was upon responsibilities, obligations and duties, not upon liberties, entitlements and rights. I believe this is in marked contrast with circumstances today. I am not speaking only about schools. The emphasis throughout society is upon entitlements and rights.
But for every entitlement or right, someone else has a corresponding obligation or duty. Very often the entitlement or right is articulated, but little thought is given about who has the corresponding obligation or duty, how that obligation or duty is to be discharged, whether it is consistent with other obligations and duties, what is the cost of discharging that obligation or duty or, indeed, even whether it is feasible to do so by the person or institution who bears the obligation or duty. The emphasis upon entitlements and rights is pervasive. It begins with the United Nations Charter of Human Rights and ends with the notices on the notice boards and walls of hospitals (and university buildings) telling those who work there, or are patients or students, what they are entitled to expect from the hospital or university.
I suspect that an important cause of lack of trust (or expressions of lack of trust) of institutions is that the pervasive emphasis on entitlements and rights imposes a burden upon institutions which cannot be satisfied. Unsatisfied expectations lead to dissatisfaction, disappointment and mistrust. I wish to mention public expectations which cannot be satisfied and also government expectations of the same character.
Probably hospitals and the Courts suffer more from the consequences of the emphasis upon rights and obligations than does an art museum. The function of an art museum is to collect, conserve and display works of art. The NGV has fulfilled that function well, outstandingly well, over the past hundred years. It has had the financial means through the generosity of the people of Victoria, especially Alfred Felton, to acquire an outstanding representative collection of works of art.
It has had the financial means to provide a satisfactory, and lately outstanding, environment for the conservation and display of its collection. It has had the good fortune to have, by and large, outstanding directors and staff. It has engaged the interest of the community and succeeded in attracting the generosity of many donors and voluntary workers. Furthermore, the NGV has not attempted, by and large, to do anything other than fulfil its primary function to acquire, conserve and display works of art.
The excessive emphasis on entitlements and rights can mean that an institution is compelled, or thinks it must promise, to do things which it is not equipped to do.
Difficulties arise for institutions when they are expected to do things which it is not their function to do. Thus, for example, an art museum cannot be a school or teach painting or art history, but it is frequently suggested in relation to art museums, by persons whom it may be assumed are very well intentioned, that if the art museum were more directly involved in teaching or education (other than by the display of works of art), school students or art historians or aspiring painters could derive a great deal of assistance from the collections of the art museum. Art museums are often pressed, sometimes for financial reasons, to develop facilities where receptions and entertainments can be staged. But art museums are not populated by retail experts or restaurateurs. Attempts to expand money making activities at art museums very often, almost inevitably, lead to financial failure and serious distraction from the performance of the central functions of the institution.
Governments nowadays are (or feel) compelled to measure the economic contribution of institutions to the community. Thus, in the case of an art museum or public library or medical research institute, there is an attempt to quantify in precise monetary measure the economic contribution of the institution to the community.
To the uninitiated in the mysteries of economics and public finance, this might seem to be a futile, but harmlessly irrelevant, activity. An art museum is surely to be judged by the quality of its collection and its effect upon public taste, a public library by the quality of its collection of books and the encouragement of reading and research by the use of its collection, and a medical research institute by the significance for human health care of the discoveries made within the institute. One feels deep disquiet when, after another successful “blockbuster” exhibition, an announcement is made that it has contributed so many tens of millions of dollars to the economy of Victoria and this is to be compared favourably (or unfavourably) with the Melbourne Cup, the tennis, the Grand Prix or the zoo!
There seem to me to be many risks in this approach to the contribution of public institutions to our society. It is obvious, in the case of an art museum, the purpose or function of the art museum is not closely related to the making of money. Indeed, the purposes or functions of an art museum are likely to be perverted if the main measure of success becomes the financial contribution of the art museum to the economy of the State.
If an art museum is to contribute to a certain level to the economic activity of the State, it will inevitably begin to undertake activities which will (even if they are done well) detract from the fulfilment of its primary functions and lead to a corresponding loss of confidence in the institution.
Accountability
It is axiomatic that a public institution should be accountable to the public, often through government and, hence, parliament. But I am doubtful whether current notions of accountability are sound and I am rather inclined to think they may diminish trust in public institutions. The new accountability in the government sector seems to mean little more than increasing levels of central control involving the monitoring of every aspect of performance in the utmost detail.
Since 1994, in performing its functions and exercising its powers, the NGV has been subject to the direction and control of the Minister for the Arts. Since I have been a trustee, that power of control has not been exercised. However, the existence of the potential of the exercise of the power itself creates a degree of control. The existence of the power may discourage the most able from accepting the office of trustee. The existence of the power reflects a lack of confidence in the competence and honesty of the trustees. It tends, in short, in various ways to undermine the confidence in the institution without, I believe, offering any advantage in the honesty or efficiency with which the functions of the institution are fulfilled.
This provision of the National Gallery of Victoria Act is but the tip of the iceberg. There are constant efforts intended to effect an even more perfect administrative control of the institution. This is true of not only the NGV but, also, I believe, the Courts, universities and hospitals, not only in this State, but elsewhere in Australia. Beyond the control of public institutions, there is every increasing detailed, centralised control of companies, private superannuation funds, the professions, indeed, of every facet of life.
The effect is to diminish individual initiative, stifle spontaneity and divert attention and energy from the proper fulfilment of the functions and purposes of those who are made accountable.
The very language used in documents which describe or regulate the relationship between the art museum and government is inapt or nonsensical: the “government” is said to “purchase outputs” from the NGV by its recurrent grants. There is the confusion between the government of the day and the State of Victoria, in whom the State collection and other assets of the institution are vested. Furthermore, neither the “government” nor the State “purchases” anything from the NGV by its recurrent grant for operating expenses. The relationship is not that of arms’ length seller and buyer of services. A more apt economic or legal analogy for the relationship between the State and the NGV would be “trusteeship”.
I am not opposed to proper accountability which enhances the fulfilment of the purposes and functions of the institution or person who is accountable. I gravely doubt, however, that new accountability achieves that. The new accountability, as I see it in the public institution of which I am President, has the primary effect of diverting resources and energy to analysing data and providing information to government officials. The new accountability does not make the institution accountable to the real owners of the NGV, the public of Victoria, but rather to unnamed (unaccountable) public officials. Proper accountability requires more attention to good governance and less attempts at total control. Onora O’Neill said, “If we want a culture of public service, professionals and public institutions must be free to serve the public, rather than their paymasters.”
Transparency
Hand in hand with the fetish of accountability is the demand for more and more information about every aspect of public institutions, under the rubric of “transparency”. In the Boyer lectures (the ABC equivalent of the Reith lectures) in 1969, Zelman Cowen spoke on the subject of privacy. Why, he asked, should privacy be valued? As I remember what I read about 40 years ago, Zelman Cowen said that privacy was required because we do not all aspire to be saints, living a life of openness within a community, as might be expected, for example, of monks or nuns. I believe a sphere of privacy, where information is not shared, is also related to mutual respect: one should desire to know no more than is necessary to know, out of respect for the other. In the closest relations between members of a family, mutual respect requires that one does not seek (or need) to know everything about other members of one’s family.
The technologies for acquiring, storing and disseminating information have been refined to a very high pitch. Onora O’Neill has said “ideals of transparency and openness are now so little questioned that those who “leak” or disseminate confidential information … often expect applause rather than condemnation, and assume they act in the public interest rather than betray it.” What is his name? Julian Assange? It is also to be remembered that the technologies for disseminating information are as good as disseminating what is false as what is true.
It is an apparent paradox that, in the period when “transparency” has become the norm and the means of disseminating information have been honed to near perfection, lack of trust of public institutions and their office holders has burgeoned.
I believe this is only partly because those who hold power have used the means of dissemination of information to spread “disinformation”, that is information which suppresses the uncomfortable truth, which gives a favourable spin to every announcement. Transparency may also encourage people to be less honest: if one knows that the minutes of a meeting may be subject to a “freedom of information” request, then the minutes may be filtered, even falsified, to avoid disclosure of what is uncomfortable. One can think of a myriad instances where the pursuit of transparency leads (or may lead) to less openness and honesty and more self censorship and deception. The increase in “transparency” has also led to the dissemination of information of which there is no identifiable author. We speak of information being “generated”, of information which has been “reformatted” or “adjusted”. There can be no reasonable reliance upon information for which there is no identifiable author, whose reliability, honesty, loyalties and sources are unknown and unable to be tested.
The NGV, like all public institutions, strives for an appropriate degree of transparency in its performance of its functions. Like any other public institution, it suffers from “leaks” (generally malicious and invariably not the whole truth upon the subject). The NGV strives to keep confidential that which it is in the interests of proper performance of its functions to keep confidential. It also strives to communicate candidly with the public of Victoria about its work and performance.
I believe that the honesty and directness with which the NGV has communicated with the public of Victoria about the performance of its basic functions (to collect, converse and display an outstanding representative collection of works of art) has contributed materially to the public trust in the institution.
Conclusion
I have spoken mainly about the National Gallery of Victoria, as an illustration of a successful public institution. It would be gratifying if some of the things I have said have some resonance for those of you involved in the workings of the great religious, education, political, legal and medical institutions of our society.
This article is based on an address to Newman College, University of Melbourne, in May 2011.
