The Age of Responsibility

How old is old enough to know better? In particular, when can we be said to be responsible, and therefore accountable, for our actions? (All the recent political shenanigans around “collective accountability”, “departmental responsibility”, “creeping assumptions” and “ministerial conduct” has got me thinking….)

By the time we are 7 years of age, we should probably know the difference between “right and wrong”, at least in the context of home, school, culturally and socially – “don’t tell lies, don’t be rude to your elders, don’t steal, don’t hit your siblings…”

The age for criminal responsibility varies around the world, but the global average is between 10 and 14 years. In Australia, it is currently 10, but there are proposals to extend it to 14. While I can understand and appreciate some of the arguments in favour of the latter, I’m also aware that criminal intent (not just criminal acts or behaviour) can establish itself under the age of 10 – I’m thinking of the James Bulger case in the UK in particular.

Legally, 18 is the coming of age – for entering into contracts, getting married (without the need for parental approval), earning the right to vote, the ability to purchase alcohol and tobacco. But you can have sex, and start driving a car from the age of 16.

As a society, we appear to be extending the age at which we become “responsible adults”. The concept of “adolescence” emerged in the 15th century, to indicate a transition to adulthood. The notion of “childhood” appeared in the 17th century, mainly from a philosophical perspective. While “teenagers” are a mid-20th century marketing phenomenon.

However, we now have evidence that our brains do not finish maturing until our third decade – so cognitively, it could be argued we are not responsible for our actions or decisions until we are at least 25, because our judgment is not fully developed. In which case, it rather begs the question about our ability to procreate, drink, drive and vote….

Of course, many age-based demarcations are cultural and societal. Customary practices such as initiation ceremonies are still significant markers in a person’s development and their status in the community (including their rights and responsibilities).

Which brings me to social media – shouldn’t we also be responsible and held accountable for what we post, share, comment on or simply like on Facebook, Twitter etc.? Whether you believe in “nature” or “nurture”, some academics argue we always have a choice before we hit that button – so shouldn’t that be a guiding principle to live by?

Next week: Making Creeping Assumptions

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three Wise Monkeys

At the time of writing, Melbourne is poised to move out of Stage 4 lock-down – but don’t hold your breath in anticipation: we have become used to the drip feed of information, contradictory policy narratives, and the political process of softening up the public not to expect too much too soon.

Three Wise Monkeys – Image by Anderson Mancini, sourced from Flickr

Meanwhile, the Public Inquiry into the failure of the Hotel Quarantine Programme will this week feature three key political witnesses, namely the State Premier and his Ministers for Health and Jobs respectively. Based on the evidence given to the Inquiry so far, plus the Premier’s daily press briefings, it’s clear that no-one in public office or in a position of authority can say specifically who, how and when the decision was made to engage private security firms to implement the hotel quarantine arrangements.

Of itself, the decision to outsource the hotel security should not have been an issue – after all, the State Government engages private security firms all the time. However, it has now been established that nearly 100% of the community transmission of Covid19 during Victoria’s second wave of infections can be traced back to returning travellers who were in hotel quarantine. On top of that, the Inquiry has seen evidence of people breaching the terms of their quarantine, and has heard a litany of errors and mismanagement at every level of administration.

Although the Premier as leader of the Government has claimed overall responsibility for the quarantine debacle (and which led to him imposing the Stage 4 lock-down), it’s worrying that no-one in his administration (himself included) can recall the details of the fateful decision. Pending the outcome of the Inquiry (and the result of the next State Election), it remains to be seen whether the Premier or anyone else is actually going to be held directly accountable for the blatant quarantine failures.

Not only that, but Ministers, their senior civil servants and key State Administrators all seem to be denying responsibility for making any concrete decisions on the hotel quarantine security arrangements, let alone to knowing who did, when or how. It’s like a bizarre remake of the Three Wise Monkeys, in triplicate: first, we have the Premier and his two key Ministers; then you have their respective Departmental Secretaries; finally there is the Chief Health Officer, the Chief Commissioner of Police and the Emergency Management Commissioner.

Instead of “see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil” it’s more a case of: “I didn’t see who made the decision, I didn’t speak to anyone who made the decision, and I certainly didn’t hear from anyone who did make the decision“. In exchanges with the media and at the Inquiry, some of the players have even tried to deflect responsibility onto their counterparts, along the lines of, “I assumed X had made that decision”, or “the decision had been made before I got to the meeting”.

Yet, somehow, a decision was made.

So was the decision taken telepathically, organically or via a process of osmosis – the people involved simply “knew” or “sensed” that a decision had been made?

In case anyone think I am being unfair or I am deliberately misconstruing the situation, let’s follow the logic of what we are being told, and as a consequence, what we are being asked to believe. Earlier this month the Hotel Quarantine Inquiry heard evidence about an apparent administrative “decision” to exclude the Chief Health Officer “from taking control of the state’s coronavirus response against his wishes and in contradiction to the state’s own pandemic plan”.

A few weeks prior, the Premier was reported as saying:

I wouldn’t want anyone to assume that anyone had made an active decision that [the Chief Health Officer] should be doing certain things.”

And there is the nub of the issue – as voters and tax payers, we are expected to believe that none of our elected representatives, civil servants or public officers have made specific decisions about key aspects of the public health response to the pandemic.

In his evidence to the Hotel Quarantine Inquiry, the Secretary to the Department of Premier and Cabinet gave further insight into the decision-making processes. Like his colleagues and counterparts, he was “unaware” who ultimately made the decision to use private security firms. Instead, he suggested that decision-making was shared among key experts:

“I have a strong view that the concept of collective governance where you’re bringing together the special skills of different actors to deal with complex problems is an important part of how we operate,” he said. “So you’ve asked for my response, as the head of the public service, I can see some legitimacy in the idea of there being collective governance around an area such as this.”

So does “collective governance” mean that no single person is responsible for decision-making (and as such, no individual can take the credit or be blamed for a specific decision)? Or does it mean that everyone involved is responsible, and as such they are all accountable for the decisions made by the “collective”, or which are made in their name or on their behalf? In which case, if the decision to engage private security firms was the root cause of the second wave and the Stage 4 lock-down (and all its consequential social and economic damage) should the “collective” all fall on their swords?

As the Guardian commented last week:

“The hearings have been running for several weeks now, and no one has yet claimed personal responsibility for the decision to use private security guards in hotel quarantine. The murkiness around this decision […] has become almost more significant than the decision [itself]. In inquiries like these, being unable to elicit a clear answer to such a key and really simple question is usually not a good indicator of the underlying governance protocols in place.”

Having once worked in the public sector for five years, I know that there are basically four types of decision-making outcomes in Public Administration:

  1. A good decision made well (due process was followed, and the outcome was positive and in accordance with reasonable expectations – job done)
  2. A poor decision made properly (the due process was followed, but unfortunately it turned out badly – shit happens)
  3. A good decision made poorly (we stuffed it up, but sometimes the end justifies the means – high-fives all round)
  4. A poor decision made poorly (no-one in their right minds would have come to that conclusion, and the results speak for themselves – we’re toast)

Subject to the evidence to be presented to the Inquiry this week (and depending on how the transition out of Stage 4 lock-down goes), I fear that in the case of the decision to outsource hotel quarantine security, it sits squarely in category #4.

I can almost imagine the scenario when the “decision” to hire private security guards was communicated to the various Ministers, Civil Servants and Public Officers:

Member of the Collective #1: “OK, the State Government has been asked to implement the Hotel Quarantine programme on behalf of the Commonwealth, so we need you, you and you to organise the security hiring arrangements. We don’t care how you do it, or who you use, but just get it done, and make sure that any poor outcomes can’t be attributed to any of us.”

Member of the Collective #2: “Can we take up the offer of assistance from the ADF?”

Member of the Collective #1: “Don’t ask. (Don’t get.)”

Member of the Collective #2: “Oh, so we’re working under a policy of plausible deniability?”

Member of the Collective #1: “You didn’t hear that from me.”

Member of the Collective #3: “Is so-and-so aware of this decision?”

Member of the Collective #1: “I don’t know, and you don’t need to know either.”

Member of the Collective #4: “Got it. Didn’t see it, didn’t say it, didn’t sort it.”

Of course, this dialogue is pure conjecture on my part, but I think we’ve all seen enough episodes of “Yes Minister”, “The Hollowmen” and “The Thick of It” to know how these things play out….

Next week: The Age of Responsibility

 

 

 

Revisiting Purpose

Enforced lock-down thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic has provided ample opportunity for each of us to reflect on our “purpose” – especially if we typically identify our purpose with going to the office or other workplace (and the time spent on our daily commute).

In addition to the mandatory furlough, the inability to do the everyday things we usually take for granted can create some sort of existential crisis. So even though many of us continue to work from home, there is a very practical purpose in having a structured routine (including the all-important daily exercise allowance!) – for both physical and psychological needs.

But this time of reflection also provides an opportunity to reassess our priorities, and re-calibrate what is important to us, once we get through the pandemic. It feels that the paradox of having more time on our hands, but fewer options as to what to do with it, might mean we should be jealously protective of how and where we spend it once we get the chance.

So some of the factors we may consider in deciding how we spend our time and how we define our purpose might include:

  • what have I really missed, and what can I do without?
  • what will sustain me, and what will be a drain on my resources?
  • what can support my personal development, and what will hold me back?
  • what can I do independently, and what will require collaboration?
  • what has engaged me, and what has bored me?
  • what new skills have I had to learn, and what will continue to be relevant?
  • what do I wish I had done more of (or less of) before the lock-down?

While “time spent” shouldn’t be the defining criteria of our purpose, as a valuable (and finite) resource, how we allocate our time should be a significant measure of what is important to us, and what enables us to pursue our purpose.

Next week: Three Wise Monkeys

Always Look On The Bright Side…

Following the so-called roadmap to reopening the Victorian economy, this week I was sorely tempted to vent my anger and frustration at the situation we find ourselves in Melbourne – a situation in large part due to the failure of the hotel quarantine programme, which has been identified as the source of the community transmission, and the consequent devastating impact on the aged care and health care sectors. (Unlike our politicians and civil servants, I refuse to use the term “settings” – “settings” are what you use on a microwave oven…..). I was going to describe how our current Federal and State leaders decline to take specific responsibility for their respective Administration’s mistakes, while continuing to treat the citizens of Melbourne like a political football…. Instead, I decided to be more hopeful, and reflect on some of the positive aspects of the continuing lock-down.

First, most of us are still here, and most of us remain healthy – and although I have not socialized with family or friends for 6 months, I can still have Zoom calls and virtual drinks.

Second, despite the lack of social interaction, thanks to “no contact” front doorstep drop-offs, friends and neighbours have provided small gifts such as home-made bread and home-grown herbs and vegetables.

Third, on-line shopping has got a lot better, despite some of the shipping delays – on the downside, I probably won’t be in a hurry to revisit bricks and mortar retail….

Fourth, by not eating out, and by not using public transport, I’m saving money – some of which is being redirected to small luxuries such as dine-at-home restaurant meals and domestic gadgets.

Fifth, my local green space, Yarra Park is thriving, because the lawns are not being used as a car park several days a week – it’s actually encouraging more people to use it for its original purpose of public recreation.

Sixth, courtesy of the 1-hour daily exercise regime, on my walks I have been exploring parts of the City that I thought I knew well, often discovering new historical aspects or architectural features I had never noticed before (and all within a 5km radius of my home, of course).

Seventh, when I do venture out for food shopping, thanks to the limits on numbers, the supermarket is less crowded and the experience is actually far more relaxing than when having to shop in normal peak hours.

Eighth, the enforced and extended work-from-home regime means I have come to appreciate my domestic surroundings, even though it can get a bit claustrophobic being cooped up most of the time.

Ninth, I have found time to finish and release a new album on Bandcamp (thanks to the few generous souls who have actually paid to download it!).

Tenth, notwithstanding some testing days, I find that after nearly 25 years, my relationship with my significant other has proven to be remarkably resilient.

So, on reflection, I can think of far worse situations and locations to be in. I know I will get through this, and although things will never be “normal” again, I think I will have re-set my personal priorities and regained a sense of what is or isn’t important. It’s been a hard lesson (and continues to be a challenging experience), but hopefully it will bring long-term benefits.

Next week: Revisiting Purpose