News Articles

How about a fair go?

8th Feb 12

“Fair go.” Two words embody Australian values and identity. We claim an acute sense of injustice. We stand against unfairness and for the underdog.

So why don’t we give the Prime Minister a fair go?

If the United States’ economy was half as healthy as Australia’s, President Obama would already be an unbackable favourite for re-election. Yet Prime Minister Gillard languishes in opinion polls.

Why?

We Australians fail to understand our own system of democracy.

The Prime Minister is the Member of the House of Representatives who is able to command a majority in the House. We, the electorate, do not elect the Prime Minister. We elect our local Member. This Member joins with other Members of the same political party to elect the parliamentary leader of that party. The leader who can command a majority of Members in the House of Representatives forms the Government and becomes Prime Minister.

On 24th June 2010 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd lost his capacity to command a majority of Labor Members and relinquished the leadership of the parliamentary Labor party to Julia Gillard who then became Prime Minister.

While it is unusual for a Prime Minister to lose the confidence and support of his parliamentary colleagues within a first term in office, there is nothing undemocratic or illegitimate about the way Julia Gillard displaced Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister. It is simply a rather unusual example of Australia’s particular democratic system in action.

This has been misunderstood by the electorate, misinterpreted by the media and exploited by the Opposition. The speed and effectiveness with which it was accomplished spoke volumes about the relative support for Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd within the ruling Labor party, her courage and her political acumen. It avoided the messy, drawn-out, damaging struggle which often precedes a change of leadership.

It should have been applauded. Instead it was vilified.

The media, blindsided by an event most had failed to anticipate, masked its own failure by using imagery of betrayal and “faceless men”. The opposition predictably cried “foul” and successfully sought to taint a legitimate political process with an odour of illegitimacy. This then became its major ongoing tactic. The electorate felt frustrated because the government had accomplished what polls indicated it wanted to – pull down Kevin Rudd.

Thus a perfectly legitimate process of Australia’s democratic system was unfairly vilified through a combination of misunderstanding, misinterpretation and exploitation.

The unfair treatment of the new Prime Minister escalated through the subsequent election campaign when someone from her own party determined to undermine her campaign and confidence through a series of damaging leaks. No one knows who. This real example of betrayal by “faceless men” was never recognised in those terms by the media.

It nearly brought her down. We, the people, decided through our voting not to give either major party an absolute majority of Members in the House of Representatives. Together we created a hung Parliament and minority government. We left it to the elected Members to decide.

Once we had done this, mature reasoning would acknowledge all bets were off in terms of election promises. We had created an entirely new situation. The Australian democratic process now required leaders of each major political party to exercise superior collaboration and negotiating skills the gain a majority in the House of Representatives. The next Prime Minister had to aim for what could be achieved within the situation we created rather than what they promised in the course of the election campaign. Compromise is both inevitable and desirable in this situation.

Julia Gillard obviously has superior skills for the situation which the electorate created. The Greens and independent Members chose to back her, giving her the numbers in the House of Representative to be Prime Minister. This was a triumph for the Prime Minister personally and for the functioning of the Australian democratic system.

However, a thwarted Leader of the Opposition understandably sought to inflict political damage and create a reversal in the House of Representatives by continuing to cry “foul”. It has been a successful and damaging strategy.

It also inflicts collateral damage on the office of Prime Minister and Australian democracy, diminishing respect for the most important office in the land.

The processes of government are usually mundane. Political reporters need exciting events to gain coverage. Like predatory cats on the African savannah, they hunt in packs seeking opportunity to tear politicians down for the evening news. Incessant opinion polls invite everyone to join in, reducing political processes to a form of reality TV show.

In this environment, to which the electorate has contributed and which Opposition and media are bound to exploit for their own ends, Julia Gillard has never been given a break. Yet recently reporters have acknowledged she displays Ernest Hemmingway’s description of courage – grace under pressure.

In this age, no Prime Minister can or will expect to be given an even break by the Opposition.

For the rest of us, whether fearful Labor Members, the media or we, the people, I have a suggestion.

How about giving the Prime Minister a fair go?

Brian L Smith

Executive Officer

The views expressed in Life with Brian are personal views and do not necessarily represent an official position of LCSA on the topic under discussion.

Still such a colony

26th Jan 12

I felt so proud to be Australian watching Geoffrey Rush’s acceptance speech as Australian of the Year. What a great choice he is for this role, intelligent, creative, humorous and articulate. In just a few words he portrayed a delightful, inclusive picture of the way the arts reflect and express Australian identity:

“ I know that hardwired into every Australian from every background we love acting the goat, taking the mickey, cracking a joke, spinning a yarn and we live on an island that boasts the oldest nation on earth. There is an inspiration right there where performance rituals are at the heart of its being, our dreaming.”

Oh for a Head of State who could express our identity with the insight and passion which can only well up from within someone who is part of this great nation. Geoffrey Rush for President!

Why not? If the United States could choose Ronald Reagan….

…. but we won’t and we can’t. For despite all the enthusiastic, flag-draped expressions of our Australian identity that will be displayed today, deep down we exhibit deep attachments to both the ancient and modern forces which have acted to colonise us.

Last year many Australians avidly consumed the celebrity obsessed displays by our media over the marriage of William and Kate and their subsequent visit to Australia, followed by their obsequious coverage of the Queen’s visit. Much of the Australian psyche is still emotionally colonised by the English monarchy. We are colonised symbolically as demonstrated by the award of the ridiculously quaint and idiosyncratic British Crown’s Order of merit to former Prime Minister John Howard. On top of that comes the revelation that we, Australian taxpayers, pay for the gifts that Her Majesty presents to our own political and civic leaders!

If that were not sufficient, we are happily colonised culturally, politically and militarily by the USA, consuming and mimicking its entertainment products, following the progress of its domestic political campaigns and economic struggles as if they were our own and devotedly joining its every ill conceived military venture.

At least we are trying to break the economic colonisation of Wall Street and the city of London. We are working as hard as we can to be colonised economically by Beijing.

“Australians all let us rejoice”, and so we should. A nation that can produce people of the quality of Geoffrey Rush, Laurie Baymarrwangga and Marita Cheng has so much to celebrate.

“for we are young…” Yes, as a nation, Australia, while containing the oldest nation on earth, is still relatively young. At our best we exhibit the hope, creativity, aspiration and optimism of youth.

"...and free". No, sorry, we still have a way to go before we can truly stake this claim.

Brian L Smith

Executive Officer

The views expressed in Life with Brian are personal views and do not necessarily represent an official position of LCSA on the topic under discussion.

Enjoying the wonder of life

16th Jan 12

It is about 5.00am and I am experiencing one of life’s great wonders. I am waking up. A new day is dawning and I am alive.

It really is a remarkable and wonderful thing to be alive.

Brain researchers tell me that while I have been asleep my mind has been working furiously to solve problems that were too difficult for me while I was awake (like what to write for my first blog of 2012).

How good is that?

Now as consciousness emerges from slumber a myriad of electrical impulses and chemical reactions that I do not consciously control project me alive into a new day.

Life is good.

I am not using the word “good’ here as a moral or comparative term but as a descriptive one. Life is infinitely preferable to not-life. Life is intrinsically a good thing to experience. Whether you have a scientifically analytical, a religious or a quasi-magical view of the world, if you pause for a moment to consider your participation in this thing called life it is hard to suppress a sense of wonder or even amazement. For a very brief moment within the great time span of the universe you and I get to be alive.

The essential goodness of life does not shield us from its pain injustice, disappointment and struggle. Indeed it exacerbates the pain of grief which comes with the loss of life when someone we love is no longer participating with us in this great adventure. It also generates a burning sense of injustice when the enjoyment of life for many is robbed by starvation, war, famine, political oppression or abuse and neglect of the weak and vulnerable. It calls us into community with other living beings and motivates us to address the causes of suffering.

In affluent, materialistic Australia it is very easy to lose sight of the wonder of life’s goodness as an overwhelming majority of Australians have easy access to the necessities for which much of the world experiences a daily struggle, clean water, food, shelter and safety.

Losing a sense of wonder at life itself makes middle class Australia easy prey to a multitude of secondary fears, anxieties and concerns which are peddled incessantly by populist media, unscrupulous corporations and politicians devoid of vision.

Lose sight of the wonder and you can readily succumb to the illusion that life consists of status symbols and affluence relative to your neighbour. Before you know where you are, you are striving to preserve and increase these at any cost – and the cost will largely be borne by those who are genuinely struggling or generations yet to come.

Lose sight of wonder and little annoyances, problems, difficulties and setbacks loom disproportionately large and you are constantly sweating the small stuff and losing sight of what you can really achieve.

Stop!

You woke to life this morning too, didn’t you?

Take some time in 2012 simply to enjoy its amazing wonder.

Brian L Smith

Executive Officer

Leadership not Tantrums

19th Dec 11

Rugby league personality Phil Gould and Fr Chris Riley have much in common. Each has achieved considerable success in his chosen field. Each has a high profile in Sydney. Each is willing to speak authoritatively on his particular domain. Each has a proven capacity for media self-promotion. Each is something of a “pin-up” for a high profile organisation. Each has an audience.

Now each has offered us compelling evidence for the insidious and pervasive nature of poker machine addiction in New South Wales. Each of them has used their profile in their own area of expertise to appear authoritative in a completely different arena.

In July, it was Mr Gould calling a government minister “hysterical” and proposed restrictions on poker machine gambling “unreasonable”, claiming legislation would not help problem gamblers and “will severely damage rugby league and other sports” (The Sun-Herald 10 July 2011). He followed this in October with his very own special brand of hysteria attacking the Prime Minister as “the worst prime minister in Australia’s history” before a crowd of more than 1,000 at Campbelltown RSL. This month it was Fr Riley claiming mandatory pre-commitment technology for poker machines will not help problem gamblers and will deny charities money they currently receive from clubs.

Mr Gould is more flamboyant than Fr Riley but the similarities of their arguments are striking. It is hard to tell whether Phil Gould is the Fr Chris Riley of rugby league or Fr Chris Riley is the Phil Gould of the Catholic Church!

Each speaks on the possible impact of legislative proposals on problem gamblers as authoritatively as if they were speaking within their area of expertise, but with no substantiating evidence. They simply assert proposed measures will not work. Each then has the honesty to reveal his underlying anxiety, that his particular interest may lose its current share of poker machine revenue.

In their own way they reveal that people who lose beyond their means on poker machines are not the only addicts, the organisations Mr Gould and Fr Riley love and represent are also addicted to poker machine revenue.

In doing this they have done everyone a service. They have highlighted the extent of poker machine addiction in our community.

Poker machines have proved so effective at draining money from those who can least afford to lose it and reallocating it to wealthy companies and state governments that many powerful organisations have a vested interest in keeping the cash flowing and increasing it in any way possible.
We cannot blame clubs and hotels and their respective associations from doing their utmost to defend their legal right to fleece the economically vulnerable through poker machines. In doing this they appear to have learnt from the successful campaign of the mining industry against the super profits tax which contributed to Kevin Rudd’s demise last year.

Their strategy is the now recognisable and very successful corporate dummy spit. Like a toddler throwing himself on the ground demanding attention through his rage and threatening to continue until you alleviate his pain, they use their considerable resources, media power and connections to proclaim the world as you know it and your local community will fall apart if there is any move to alleviate the pain of struggling families battling the effects of pokie addiction.

The toddler in the shopping mall tries to intimidate her parents. High profile corporate tantrums are designed to intimidate politicians, sporting and community groups and the community as a whole. They also provide ready material for Sydney shock jocks whose primary skill is tapping and amplifying the ugliest streams of anger and outrage in the community. Mr Gould and Fr Riley have chosen to become the public face of these tantrums.

The tantrums cannot and should not be ignored. As the federal government tackles the scourge of poker machines amongst the economically vulnerable it must recognise how many business models are reliant on poker machine addiction. It must work with clubs, hotels, charities, sporting and community groups and state and local governments to wean the community of New South Wales from this addiction.

However, that does not mean the federal government should not legislate. Despite the discomfort and public embarrassment you do not give in to the tantrums in the mall and the government should not give in to the tantrums in the hotels and clubs. What is needed is firm and understanding leadership which does not focus solely on problem gamblers, but can progressively lead the whole community away from our reliance on their addiction.

Now that’s the sort of leadership which would be worthy of the profile of Phil Gould and Fr Chris Riley.

Written by Brian L Smith, Executive Officer, LCSA

Life With Brian - Community Benefits?

14th Dec 11

I have just had a great idea to raise money for groups in my local community.

I will create an attractive, welcoming venue and invite all the economically vulnerable people I can find to come along. I will especially seek out people who could really do with a lift in their financial situation, people who aspire to a better way of life but know they just can’t get there on their current income, people who are struggling to make ends meet. I’ll also invite the lonely and socially isolated, everyone who need somewhere they can have some human contact.

When they get there I will give them the opportunity of a lifetime. Every half hour they can each give me, say $50. I will usually give $45 back to them, but just occasionally and in a completely random way I will give someone substantially more, let’s say $500,000.

Just think what a lift everyone will receive from the hope of getting the $500,000! What a difference it would make to their lives. And what fun they will have in the meantime handing over their money and not knowing whether they would get 90% back or a big win. They can carry on for as long as they like, or at least until they run out of money.

Of course I could not give away the $500,000 very often. I would need to cover the cost from the hourly payments I receive from participants. Then there are the necessary overheads. I want to make the venue attractive and comfortable and maybe provide cheap food as an additional attraction. A liquor license would help too of course. As I am expecting a lot of people will be attracted to my little game I shall need space for a big car park and I shall have to employ plenty of staff.

Remember I am not doing this for myself, I am doing it for my community so I will need to make enough to fund some local community groups. Charities and sporting groups would be a good option as they will give my venture a very positive public profile. Naturally I would also have to pay myself as the CEO of the enterprise. I wonder what the going rate would be for such a venture?

I think this will catch on and it will have so many benefits. It will give people hope of striking it lucky and escaping the struggle of poverty. It will create employment. It will support community groups. Why I might even be able to fund my local NRL team, they always seem to be stuck for a dollar.

Mind you I do worry that any local, state or federal government worth a vote will find it just too exploitative of vulnerable people to permit it in their jurisdiction.

What’s that you say? Someone is already doing it? And they have devised machines to take the money?

Life with Brian: A tale of two news items

5th Dec 11

Six weeks ago the Sydney Morning Herald revealed the extent of poker machine use in Fairfield under the heading "The machines that are draining a city". The article revealed:

"Clubs in Fairfield own about 4 per cent of the state's total. Not only is there an above-average number of poker machines in Fairfield per head of population, but the machines are played at almost double the intensity of machines in other suburbs."

Yesterday the Sunday Telegraph published an article revealing the level of welfare reliance in the same local government area. We have used the RSS feed to place it on the front page of our website. The article highlights lack of local employment options, the inadequacy of public transport options to enable resident to reach the jobs that are available in the area and the language barrier faced by new migrants and refugees.

When the two articles are read together some important questions emerge.

Why does an area with almost twice the Sydney average of unemployment benefits put more than double the amount through poker machines than the next highest local government area?

Why does the greatest concentration of poker machines coincide with the greatest concentration of economic vulnerability?

Is this coincidence duplicated elsewhere in New South Wales?

Do clubs and pubs target the most economically vulnerable communities in their placement of poker machines?

Is it time for policy makers to join the dots?

Life with Brian: A Tale of Two Revolutions

28th Nov 11

On November 24th 1971 a flight landed in Sydney just after dawn. From Heathrow via Frankfurt, Beirut, Tehran, Bangkok, Hong Kong and Darwin, it disgorged its weary load of migrants after 38 hours of flying time.

I was one of those migrants.

I remember the scent of frangipani in Darwin, the quality of the Sydney light, the strange sight of men wearing shorts to work and the overwhelming hospitality of ordinary Australian families to this stranger in their midst.

There were nearly 13 million people in Australia. Australian forces were bogged down in an unwinnable war in Vietnam. There were fears of a dominant China. Compared with the rest of the world Australia was a land of great opportunity. The music-driven, drug influenced baby boomer cultural and social revolution which had been building for a decade had already produced the summer of love in San Francisco in 1967, anti-Vietnam war protests across the world and the May 1968 wildcat general strike in Paris. Older generations just did not get it, as Bob Dylan sneered “something’s happening here and you don’t know what it is, do you Mr Jones”. My parents, in their late thirties when I was born, were sadly left behind, forever disconcerted by rapid, unanticipated changes they could neither fully understand nor control.

The surging but chaotic tide of hope and expectation was to lift Gough Whitlam to power a year after my arrival. It was a time of significant change and heightened expectations.

Riding the same wave in 1974 an embryonic LCSA was formed as the Local Community Services Division of NCOSS and by 1976 there were 40 member centres.

We all know how our sector has grown haphazardly in its rich diversity as individual centres built on the strengths, responded to the needs and reflected the hopes and aspirations of their own particular communities. However we have always been held together by some simple common principles and philosophies which are well expressed in the neighbourhood centre policy: social inclusion (originally expressed as affirmative action towards disadvantaged people and groups), local participation and control and community development.

The intervening years have been filled with twists and turns which no one could have predicted at the beginning of the 1970s. Cycles of economic boom and bust, the expansion of government into many more areas of daily life, the rise of both economic rationalism and the development of the stock market as a casino for the super rich, purchaser/provider relationships between government and service providers and globalisation all have had their impact on the nation as a whole and on our individual neighbourhood centres and services. Many hopes withered and remain unfulfilled as the summer of love generation discovered its capacity for power, affluence and security.

Who knows what the next 40 years will bring?

In the midst of all this there have been two change trajectories which I believe are particularly significant.

The first is the rise, then decline and now renewal of community development. Recognition of the role and significance of community development was essential to the emergence of neighbourhood centres as a significant resource for their communities. However over time governments neglected the capacity of communities to engage their strengths in their own development, focussing almost exclusively on service delivery through casework. The inadequacy of this approach is now evident. Across the world there is a new interest in community development as community building, community strengthening and community capacity building.

The other is the communications revolution which has the potential to generate even more profound social change than that heady era 40 years ago.

Today, there are nearly 23 million in Australia. Australian forces are bogged down in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. There are fears of the military implications of a resurgent China. Compared with the rest of the world Australia is a land of great opportunity. The profit driven, nerd influenced electronic revolution which has been building for over a decade has already produced teenage millionaires, iPad, facebook, the txtng evolution of the English language and sedentary children. Young people know my generation just does not get it in this digital age.

However the hope of 40 years ago seems to be missing. As four decades of western avarice unravel in the economies of Europe and the United States, uncertainty and fear dominate. The new revolution is profit driven, promoting efficiency and speed not the advancement those who are missing out or in danger of being left behind. Access to technology can widen already existing divides.

However, the digital revolution is democratising the flow of communication, information and opinion. It is no longer the sole preserve of the powerful and the media elite. Anyone can start a blog pass on something they think is important or engage social media at virtually no cost.

Like my parents four decades ago, I experience this current revolution as unanticipated and something I cannot fully understand nor control. Like them, I may well be left behind. Nevertheless, I find myself excited by the possibilities the digital revolution offers our sector as we continue to promote the values and practices our movement has nurtured through the challenges and chances of the past four decades. I believe we can rise to its many challenges and opportunities.

Growing New Directions

22nd Sep 11

There was a mood of optimism, celebration and looking to the future in a positive way as over 200 delegates and presenters met last week for LCSA's 2011 Conference, Growing New Directions. Delegates enjoyed some stimulating and thought provoking presentations and workshops and the opportunity to network extensively and think about the future directions of their own services and the sector as a whole.

Delegates, here is your opportunity to share the experience of the conference with others. Share your highlights here.

Online opportunity beckons

29th Aug 11

When you look at neighbourhood centres as a nation wide movement we have a considerable presence. Close to 1,000 centres across the country each embedded in an engaged with its local community; thousands of staff, association members, participants and a small army of volunteers.

Yet because we belong to the community, because we are local, because our energies are normally spent engaging our community rather than talking up our achievements, the profile of our centres outside there immediate community is often low to non-existent. If we are honest sometimes even in our own community more could be know about who we are and what we do.

We are aware that social media give opportunities for an online presence, but too often are unsure of the nature of these opportunities and wonder about their cost in terms of finance and time.

In establishing our new website we have taken our first tentative steps into social media with our LCSA facebook page http://www.facebook.com/#!/LCSANSW . One thing I have found is that this has given me immediate connection with many of our colleagues in Victoria who have developed a stronger online presence via facebook than most centres in NSW.

At our conference we shall be helping LCSA members to develop their social media presence.

Wouldn't it be a powerful statement if Neighbourhood Centre Week 2012 saw every neighbourhood centre and house across the country and many of the particiapants in our centres linked with each other via social media.

Together we can be each others best publicists. Together we can tell each others stories. Together we can be seen and known.

More to do but heading in the right direction

7th Aug 11

From the comments we have received, it looks as if you like our new website:

“I like this one MUCH better – it’s more organic and community feeling……”

“Congratulations it is just wonderful. I've just spent some time on your new website and am so so impressed. I particularly like the information and videos on community development, principles & engagement- fantastic. Great to see all community builders templates on the site also and the history of NC's. I found the site very easy to navigate, I love the graphics on the site and colour scheme, very attractive and pleasing on the eye. Love how the graphics relate to new modern society, technology but also include environment. Fabulous & Well done”

“The website looks fantastic very vibrant and easy to navigate.”

However, it is still very much under development and we shall be revealing more of its capacity over the next few months. We are also aware our members will be able to notice flaws and possible improvements which those of us who have put it together have not considered.

So we need your help to make improvements and realize the full potential which is available through the technology. We have already received some helpful comments from David Beddoe from CMAP which have identified a deficiency in our invoicing system, thanks David. Other comments which have helped us make improvements:

“Thanks Brian, it looks good. Just one thing, would you ask someone to transfer the Blue Mountains centres from Nepean region into Blue Mountains.”

“Great website – just one little thing, Wellington does not appear and we have definitely paid our membership.”

Join us at 2.30 on Tuesday afternoon (Tuesday 9th August) for a one hour live blog, with your comments, suggestions, critiques and improvements. If you cannot make it at that time feel free to post your comments now or any time in the blog response below.

.... and absolute power corrupts absolutely

21st Jul 11

I am wondering why the UK Parliament, the Murdoch family and media commentators in Australia apparently fail to understand the basic governance concepts of accountability and responsibility. Were Messrs Rupert and James Murdoch responsible phone hacking - who knows? And who may ever know? Are they both accountable for it? You bet! Corporate Governance 101.

Community organisations, who have been badgered by government departments over the past decade on their governance arrangements, will not miss the irony. We live in an age where corporations are the most successful and dominant visible entities, the largest and most powerful even having the capacity to eclipse sovereign states both economically and in terms of influence. Yet even they do not always get it right.

We should not be surprised the governance model for corporations has infiltrated democratic governments and has subsequently been advanced by bureaucracy as the model for everyone, including community organisations. Disregard for a moment the bureaucratic predilection for "one size fits all" arrangements which ignore local contexts, size and the natural stages of organisational evolution. The governance model that has evolved in the corporate sphere has much to commend it as a vehicle for both enabling and balancing opportunity for executive initiative, creativity and risk taking with robust structures for reporting and accountability.

Most community organisations have recognised this and have responded accordingly. Community-based, community-managed organisations want to be accountable, both to their communities and to their funding bodies. However, the UK phone hacking scandal demonstrates good governance is not simply a matter of having recognised formal, governance structures in place. It also encompasses that more elusive beast “organisational culture” together with ethics and the personal aspects of leadership style. These have the capacity to overwhelm even the very best structural arrangements.

Through our governance projects LCSA has recognised community organisations, like businesses, undergo stages of development. In the early stages of a neighbourhood centre’s or community organisation’s life having a good start up entrepreneur as manager or co-ordinator is arguably more important than having a strong formal governance structure. However, good start up entrepreneurs often tend to be somewhat dictatorial and single minded in their approach, moving quickly, seizing opportunities, working all hours, exuding energy and drawing everyone along with them with a mixture of vision, excitement and force of personality.

As an organisation develops and grows it is vital for its long term health that it develops both accountability and delegation structures that relieve any individual from excessive power and decision making responsibilities. For, no matter how capable, competent and successful we may be, we are still only human beings and human beings all share the same limitations, whatever their culture or social background.

If an organisation leaves one person with too many decision making responsibilities it will limit its growth and grind to a halt as that person’s in-tray fills and overflows, so delegation is vital. Delegation does not seem to have been a problem for News Corporation.

The issue of excessive power is harder to define and address. It is inevitably a point where the elusiveness of organisational culture trumps formal structural arrangements. We are all aware of the opinion expressed by Lord Acton in his letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The corruption of power is not confined to the government of nations, it emerges in every institution and organisation.

Our problem is we live in an age which has been seduced by and worships the “leader as hero”. Even in Australia with our habitual cutting down of tall poppies, our elections have become more and more presidential in style and content, TV anchors leap on a plane to be the face of response to the latest disaster, and many radio show hosts abandon fair and balanced reporting for the role of populist agitator. And it works for them. The spirit of our age sweeps us along allowing the power hungry, the narcissistic and the status seekers to strut their stuff with impunity while the rest of us look on with a mixture of fascination, admiration, envy and (not frequently enough) horror. Most have never read Lord Acton’s next sentence: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

Mr Rupert Murdoch is the hero leader of News Corporation. As he swept all before him, his organisation, in terms of accountability, appeared happy to go along for the ride and major political parties of all persuasion chose to be seduced by his power rather than challenge it on behalf of the people who elected them. This may have been because they were afraid the people who elected them were already seduced by the power of his media.

When someone who is so powerful has such an obvious fall from grace the temptation for the rest of us who will never attain his success or dizzy heights of influence is to succumb to our envy through another ugly human trait, public or private gloating. It is at this point all of us who are involved in organisational life should pause and examine the practices and culture of our own organisations.

As I watched Mr Murdoch before the parliamentary committee, I saw not a bad man, but an extraordinarily ambitious and successful human being who became the hero leader with too much power.

I’m with Tina Turner, “We don’t need another hero”, for the seductions of power are always present. Even in community organisations, if we do not pay attention to both our culture and accountability structures we can all, in our own small way, travel the same destructive path.

Brian L Smith