Standards and Values - Part 1

A Commentary on "MPs behaving badly: why do we sweat the small stuff?"

Preface

On 22 June 2024 there were two articles of interest to me in the NZ Herald. Both of them were opinion pieces and came from writers who occupy different positions on the political spectrum. They had to do with similar topics but the approaches were totally different. Bruce Cotterill argues that some of the ills currently facing New Zealand should be solved from within by drilling down to what is important, understanding standards of behaviour, taking responsibility when conduct falls below those standards and focussing on the things that matter. Simon Wilson on the other hand argues that we should emulate the Northern European countries of Scandinavia, conveniently ignoring the fact that culturally – not to mention geographically – these countries have little in common with an island nation in the South Pacific. But Mr. Wilson argues that perhaps we should adopt  - copy is the word he uses – elements of the Scandinavian way as an answer to our problems – a socialist and collectivist approach.

In this two part series I shall examine and comment upon these articles. There is a common thme to both – that of Standards and Values. I shall start with that of Mr Cotterill in this article and in the next I shall examine Mr. Wilson’s point of view

I shall shortly examine Mr Cotterill’s article and my comments on some of the matters he raises will appear in italics.

Bruce Cotterill writes for the New Zealand Herald. Usually his articles – which are opinion pieces – appear each Saturday. He writes from a business perspective. This is not unusual given that he is a professional director and adviser to business leaders. He is the author of the book, The Best Leaders Don’t Shout, and host of the podcast, Leaders Getting Coffee. He has his own website at

https://www.brucecotterill.com/

Generally his articles deal with a basic matter of principle. In this piece he looks at the way in which we seem to focus of trivial matters but overlook the bigger and often existential matters of principle. The principle that Mr Cotterill focusses upon in the piece that follows, and in respect of which I offer my own occasional commentary, is about standards.

He emphasises the importance of standards of appearance – in particular dress – as indicators of an attention to detail and also to a certain level of behaviour and expectation both of ourselves and of others.

His message may seem curious in a world that has descended into the ambivalence of relativism and one where those who have fallen into error either fail to recognise that they have done so, attempt to cover up what has gone wrong or, when finally confronted with the fact that they have fallen below a level of expectation, offer an excuse based on external causes, or causes over which they have not control – this shifting responsibility for their error from themselves to something beyond their control.

This relativism extends to making what are described as “heartfelt” (how often do we see that meaningless word) apologies. For some an apology is all that is sought.

But behind a true apology there should be – but often is not – a high level of true remorse and a clear and irrevocable intention to ensure that the mistake is not repeated.

So often the accompanying remorse and the irrevocable intention are lacking or absent altogether.

These are some of the subtexts that I took from Mr Cotterill’s article.

MPs behaving badly: why do we sweat the small stuff?

They say that there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

I don’t know much about the other two, but the stats are giving us bad news on a weekly basis. Everywhere we look, we seem to be underperforming. We’ve talked about most of it already. The state of the economy, waiting lists, school attendance. School achievement. Inflation isn’t coming down. Unemployment is going up. Interest rates aren’t budging. And the Reserve Bank seems to have a different view of what constitutes a recession than the rest of us.

I try hard to listen to what people are saying. I talk to a lot of people. I read a lot. And every now and then I tune in to talkback. I’m often surprised by how wound up we get about things that don’t matter.

Here we are, racked with a multitude of major economic, social and even racial problems, and yet earlier this week the “collective we” ran off to talkback and became distracted by our MPs rightfully claiming their entitlement to a housing allowance for the time they spend in Wellington. It’s an entitlement. If we wish, we can stop it. But, in the overall scheme of things, it doesn’t matter.

 There are far greater problems facing the country and a number of them are symptomatic of a greater malaise and that is neglect. One only has to consider the supply of electricity that was in question in May during a cold snap with dire warning from Transpower that it may not manage the load to the collapsed pylon in Northland that took out power for 100,000 people. For that latter issue one must ask where the backup power supply was. Or was that pylon part of the backup power supply. And if it was why on earth were they working on it when the primary supply was down. Then there are the data centre projects that are going to consume large amounts of electricity. Have the power utilities provided for that as well as ensuring that ordinary citizens may have a hot meal at the end of the day.

The RNZAF Boeing that is used for official visits is another example of an ongoing inability to keep things going. This aircraft has been a problem for a number of years with a history of breakdowns. Inadequate maintenance? That the aircraft is getting old doesn’t cut it.

Water supply is another issue. Although there are no immediate problems for Auckland, Wellington has been in crisis and at one stage there were suggestions that people might have to line up to get water in containers. Third world? We are teetering on the brink.

Auckland Transport’s continued issues in maintaining the rail service is a continuing problem and one that undermines public confidence in this example of public transport. Apparently from a management point of view there are a number of moving parts or organisations involved and clearly co-ordinating them is a problem. The issue is, however, that none of these people seem to realise they are providing a vital public service and one that they expect us to pay for.

Late in the week we seemed to get ourselves all twisted about something the PM said “yesterday”. Admittedly I’m paraphrasing, but he said he was pleased he had a top-quality delegation of business interests represented with him in Japan. He called them an A-List. He went on to refer to a previous delegation as a C-List by comparison. That upset the commentators.

We were still talking about it 48 hours later. Should he have said it? Probably not. Does it matter? Not really. We should be more concerned about whether he and his A-List colleagues can drum up some business in Japan in order to help get us out of the economic mire we are in.

Quite – of course we find out about these things from mainstream media and the chattering classes who seem to fasten on every negative pronouncement rather than the positive ones. Admittedly the comment would have been better left unsaid.

For an alternative view: An open letter to the Prime Minister about trade delegations from Ian Taylor

I’ve often said that we Kiwis care more about the All Blacks’ coach than we do about the state of our country. I genuinely think the All Blacks will be okay. We don’t need to worry about that. The country, on the other hand, has some problems.

Agreed – for examples see above.

We get wound up about the little things because we would like to think that we care about the behaviour of our politicians. When they are elected we have a sense of hope for what they may contribute. Currently, we perceive that they are not meeting those expectations.

It’s a reasonable thing to get exercised about. But we need to be consistent. And we need to start in the right areas.

The expectations we have are constantly set and reset by the standards of behaviour demonstrated by our elected representatives. Sadly, the recent conduct of our MPs suggests that those standards are declining.

The argumentative and confrontational atmosphere generated by politics and politicians provides a clear example. The aggressive and hostile commentary from Te Pati Maori in particular provides an example. Out leaders are meant to be role models but the hostile and aggressive approach of the co-leaders of Te Pati Maori in particular sets a bad example. But by their behaviour they validate similar behaviours in others.

Like anything, standards start at the top. We have expectations of how our politicians should behave, how they should dress, and what they should be focusing on. They are our leaders after all. But recently we’ve seen a wide range of MPs from a number of political parties fail to meet those expectations.

Towards the end of the last parliamentary term, the wheels started falling off the Labour Government and a number of their MPs were caught out acting inappropriately. Since the new parliamentary term began, the Greens have been a one-party headline machine, with repeated failures on the behaviour scale. A National MP was outed for failing to declare donations appropriately. To all of those involved in these indiscretions I would say the following. “You now hold office in our national Parliament. Such behaviour is not good enough.”

You see, the more we see inappropriate behaviour, the more desensitised we become to it. Pretty soon, we start accepting it.

That is the problem. We become desensitised to bad behaviour partly because no one will call it out and partly because there are no consequences suffered. Rather there are excuses offered or interminable inquiries which are probably designed to take the adverse story off the front page and bury it after the problem has been long forgotten. Bad behaviour needs to be condemned. There need to be consequences. But people don’t resign any more and blame a host of external features for their misbehaviour – hence they can say – its not my fault.

A few years back, male MPs were seldom seen in anything other than a suit and tie. We have to accept that fashion settings have changed. But we should still expect our MPs to be presented appropriately. Even in my life there is still a place every now and thgen for a suit and tie. And there are certain parliamentary traditions that should still require MPs to be dressed in their “number ones”.

Sadly, such disciplines have gone. Late last year, we even saw some MP’s turn up in casual attire – some would say fancy dress – for that most traditional of settings, the swearing-in of Parliament. We need to be better than that. That particular event was also marred by the behaviour of some MPs that day.

Next time around we won’t expect as much. As expectations decline, the behaviour is bound to follow. And so the decline will continue.

The decline of standards is a slippery slope. I used to wear a suit and tie every day. Many of the people in the business I led wore T-shirts. I was often asked why I wore a tie. My answer was simple. If I dressed down, the team might turn up in singlets! In short the standards are set by the leaders. And those standards are reflected in the work that follows.

When presentation standards decline, it’s only natural for our expectations around performance standards to follow. If our All Blacks turned up as a scruffy rabble, arriving late and saying whatever they wanted, perhaps even being disrespectful to the opposition, we wouldn’t expect much of them in terms of performance.

I was always taught that if you took some time in making yourself presentable and took some trouble in looking good a “feel good” attitude would follow. I am frankly appalled at the scruffy attire that many people step out in. Have they no pride? Where is the self-esteem?

All my professional life I wore a suit and tie and Winston Peters wasn’t the only man in town who wore a pocket square in his jacket. I find it difficult and uncomfortable to wear a suit or sport coat with an open necked shirt. I prefer a tie at that level. Rawiri Waititi refers to the tie as a colonial noose, but then he wears a hat indoors which tells you something about his dress sense.

I don’t know that I would call a suit and tie “number ones.” That terms is reserved for dress attire and I consider number ones to be a dinner jacket and black tie (or tuxedo in warmer climes) or white tie and tails. Morning suit before noon.

In a sense what Mr Cotterill is saying here is that our standards have slipped. Even a simple matter such as how one is turned out or leaves home for the day should require evidence of care in appearance along with self respect.

I recall one lunchtime walking through the Westfield Mall at Manukau. I was wearing a dark blue pinstripe suit (tailor made in Hong Kong) a light blue shirt with white bankers collar and cuffs, Swarowski cufflinks, a gold and blue diagonally striped tied and gold pocket square and black Florsheim shoes. Over the top was a gray overcoat with a velvet collar from the House of Fraser. I was minding my own business when two late middle-aged women approached and said how nice it was to see someone so well turned out. For me it was natural – second nature. And I still take care with my appearance even on Zoom calls.

In the government sense, our performance expectations extend to what we are prepared to accept in our education or healthcare frameworks. Then, we have hopes for poverty or housing or transport. At present, just like the behaviour of our MPs, those standards are in decline.

As members of our society, we should not accept the delivery of services or solutions that don’t meet acceptable standards. We should only accept outcomes that meet our expectations in terms of timeliness, budgetary performance and quality.

And yet, we see brand new roads crumbling within months of being laid. We have school teachers who don’t know what times tables are, and we have council properties where the grass isn’t cut. Police cars are allowed to go out in the morning without being washed and public bus services likewise. We hear of hospitals on the West Coast that are closed on weekends because of staffing, and a brand new hospital on the North Shore that hasn’t opened yet because of budget shortfalls. So why build it if we’re not going to run it?

The point is this. Standards are not just about how we dress or how we communicate or how clean our car is. Standards extend to include what we are prepared to accept from others. Among those others, are our parliamentarians. And right now they’re not exactly shining, are they. All the tit for tat, the name-calling and the racial slurs do not represent standards of leadership we should expect. And in parallel with that, we are not seeing the performance we might expect either.

Entirely correct. Within the bigger picture standards and expectations are critical. It may seem old fashioned or out of date – indeed to many the idea of standards may challenge the relativistic way that things seem to be done these days. Standards imply boundaries. Standards imply expectations of outcomes. Failure to meet standards results in consequences – adverse consequences for those who fall beneath an acceptable level.

 If standards are failing around us we will fall into the same trap. We will set our own expectations of others to a level where we are less likely to be disappointed. Thereafter our own behavioural standards will decline. After all, if no one else bothers, why should I? It’s a recipe for a country in decline.

Again entirely correct. It of ten requires a level of grit to maintain standards but by doing so we set an example for others and demonstrate an uncompromising intention not to fall below a certain level. This requires discipline and a willingness to expect criticism from those who are unwilling to meet performance expectations and for whom failure is an option. It should not be.

The standards we are prepared to accept are the backbone of our society. We should expect decency, competence and people doing the best that they can. While they are at it, we should expect individuals to be treated with respect and integrity at every turn.

It’s not just our politicians who need to check their conduct. Our own behaviours should reflect our expectations of others. If someone gives us an opportunity we should give it our best shot. If the boss is flexible enough to pay us while we work from home, the least we can do is give him or her an honest day’s effort. If our parents or our employer are supporting us to earn an education, we should work hard and make the most of that opportunity.

As noted above, it starts at the top. That’s where the headlines are. That’s where the expectations are set. And frankly, that’s where the stakes are so high that we need the very best of outcomes from every working hour.

This is common sense and needs to be said. The rot that is taking place is not just at the political level but elsewhere as well. It is not just a question of failing infrastructure that I have outlined above. It is in fact at all levels

The recent behaviour of some of our politicians has me thinking about whether our system of government is no longer appropriate. The proliferation of list MPs means many of these people are not accountable to an electorate or, in fact, to any community other than the party they represent. As a result, the MMP system is soft on consequences and poor behaviours are seldom punished. Even if an individual falls over completely they are replaced. By the party, not the people. A new face slots in and the system is undermined just that little bit more.

I have mentioned consequences for behaviour that falls below standards and expectations above. And I share Mr. Cotterill’s concerns about whether MMP is indeed a satisfactory way of delivering a democratic government. The qualification for List candidates of the main parties seems to suggest a reward for good service rather than an ability to function as a Parliamentarian. Given the need for numbers one wonders whether or not List MPs are no more than cannon fodder when it comes to a vote. Thew problem is further compounded by the fact that List MPs owe neither allegiance noire accountability to a constituency and as Mr Cotterill points out, the system is soft on consequences for poor behaviour.

And so as one of our members of Parliament sits accused of inappropriate behaviour, and remains absent from Parliament on full pay, while her party’s investigation into that behaviour enters its 100th day, the once solid credibility of our system of government slips away a little further as our decline in standards continues, and our capacity for accountability is lost.

I think there may be two exceptions where the Greens have actually won a seat. All the others are List MPs and that issue of accountability is very clear. Golriz Gharaman had no choice but to resign but when you consider that she was charged with and pleaded guilty to theft and dishonesty offences involving property to a value of many thousands of dollars, the level of behaviour was so far below an acceptable standard or an expectation of a Member of Parliament that she had no option but to resign her seat.

We must be hopeful that one day, we will once again have public leaders that we can look up to. People who come to public life and earn the admiration of their public through their actions and achievements. People who give us confidence that their night in Wellington is critical to the needs of their job, and thus worth us paying for.

We live in hope.

To achieve that, they should all focus their attention on the things that really matter. And so should we.

Only then can we celebrate those who meet our expectations.