Last night the television anchors for Sky News and ABC’s 7.30, David Speers and Sarah Ferguson, put similar opening questions to the Treasurer Joe Hockey after he handed down the 2014 Federal Budget. Both Speers and Ferguson zeroed in on the issue of broken election promises.
The exchange that occurred between Speers and Hockey was almost comical. The Coalition went to the 2013 election pledging not to introduce new taxes but, nine months later, the budget introduces quite a few new taxes. How can that be reconciled?
The simple method would be to acknowledge it and start explaining why but why choose simple? Why not simply deny it, twist words and squirm your way around the issue? Watching Hockey evade Speers’ point about broken election promises reminded me of conversations I have with my four-year old daughter. “Tuesday is the weekend, Mummy.” “No it’s not. “Yes it is”. “No it’s not”. “It IS Mummy”. “Ok then.” There are some battles not worth fighting.
The questions put to Hockey, however, are not among them. Because the issue is bigger than semantics and far bigger than a single tax; it is about credibility and transparency. It is one thing to make promises in the lead up to an election and then later change them. Sometimes that is a necessity, but it’s another thing altogether to break a series of promises, deny it and ask to be trusted in the same breath. Doing that after ruthlessly castigating your predecessors for being untrustworthy is galling.
Regardless of the substantive changes introduced, whether they represent policy brilliance or not, that is a failure of leadership. And as I watched the Treasurer play the evasive game last night I realised my frustration isn’t limited to politics. It’s that so few people – whether they’re political leaders or business leaders – say what they really mean.
Wouldn’t progress and change be better achieved if we weren’t always fumbling around in the dark? Earlier this week I wrote about the subversive attitudes a female executive was subject to whilst on maternity leave. The comments and feedback on that piece confirm that is not an isolated event. It is a disheartening matter of fact that pregnancy discrimination is now the number one workplace complaint in Australia. From that it is clear discriminatory attitudes towards pregnant women and mums abound but try and find a person who will – publicly – admit that. They won’t.
Which means many pregnant women and new mums are left vaguely aware that they’re being treated differently, even unfairly, but they can’t be sure. Unless someone explicitly says they’re now considered less valuable because of their new baby, they’re in no-man’s land, wishing it weren’t the case but aware it probably is.
How much easier would it be if people just came out with what they thought? Unpleasant as it might be wouldn’t it be better to know where you stand? That way you can either choose to use the opportunity to enlighten your manager or co-worker that having a baby doesn’t render your professional contribution unworthy, or to leave and find a workplace that suits you better?
If more people were honest about their beliefs regarding women and work, it would quickly become apparent why so many women leave the workforce and/or fail to secure senior positions. Not because they “choose” to or they didn’t lean in enough but because there are still many people who don’t believe that should be possible.
Wouldn’t the same authenticity work in politics? Wouldn’t it have been more constructive for the Coalition, or any political party, to be upfront about these policy and budget changes before the election? If they are committed to the merits of these changes why didn’t they sell them to us? Explain why they’re needed, argue for them, consult on them and even develop the policies. Why couldn’t they bring us along with them?
I have written many times about how the government’s paid parental leave policy could have been different. Last night in his budget speech Joe Hockey made the case for PPL because of the need to improve workforce participation. If that’s the case – which it is – why hasn’t the discussion and policy been focused on that outcome?
Because there hasn’t been any meaningful discussion; there have been slogans and charades and it’s now clear that neither meant very much. The workplace equivalent is diversity committees and policies which only ever mean as much as the relevant leaders want them to.
Are you tired of charades?