(Image: Private Media)

Leslie Cannold has had enough of being even-handed and presenting Both Sides Now so she’s cutting to the chase: what’s the right way to go? In Everyday Dilemmas, Dr Cannold brings her ethical training to your problems. Send your questions to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line. She might even reply…

Dear Leslie, 

My family are enthusiastic practitioners of minimising their tax through every legal means possible, and sometimes I get roped into their efforts. Personally I’d love to see some of these tax loopholes closed because it’s always wealthy families like ours who can exploit them, but I don’t make the rules. I’m tempted to refuse to participate in the family tax planning, but in doing so I’d disadvantage the family finances and endanger my family relationships. What should I do?

Frank from Fitzroy

Hi Frank, 

Good on you, my friend! I like your personal ethics — though I agree you face a knotty problem. 

You have two options. Yes, you can — and ideally should — protest your family’s adherence to the letter of some bad laws by articulating your moral objections and following up by withdrawing from active participation. 

But it sounds like there’ll be financial and potentially irreparable relationship costs for everyone from that choice. Because of that, and the fact that people hate being told they are acting immorally — and almost always respond defensively — I’m wary of advising you to pursue that route. Especially because you seem positive that it will put your family connections in jeopardy and the likelihood is that — because most people (wrongly) believe that legal and moral behaviour are the same — you are unfairly insinuating they have done something wrong. 

What about dedicating your efforts to changing those bad laws? There’s nothing more powerful than a person advocating to change legislation that personally benefits them. You’d have the ear of every fair-minded politician in the nation! If you’re successful, you’ll do far more to improve economic equality (and the social cohesion that flows from it) and the nation’s balance sheet than by challenging your family to a moral duel. 

Let me know what happens! 

Leslie.

Dear Leslie, 

Gladys Berejiklian is getting a raw deal from ICAC and from the media. If she was a man, she’d still be premier. Women should be rioting in the streets.

Outraged in Oak Flats 

Dear Outraged, 

Thanks for writing in. I hear your passion but respectfully disagree.

With power comes responsibility and from what I’ve heard of the former premier’s evidence to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, she doesn’t even understand what a conflict of interest is, little less accept responsibility for flouting the conflict of interest requirements needed to prevent corruption. This is a problem that any anti-corruption agency must investigate, no matter who does it — animal, vegetable or mineral.  

For instance, the former premier told the ICAC commissioner: “I didn’t think [the relationship with former Wagga Wagga MP Daryl Maguire] was something that I needed to disclose because it was something in my personal life.” Say what? The whole purpose of conflict-of-interest requirements is to avoid the conflicts that can arise for decision-makers when their public obligations clash with other — including private — relationships and interests. 

Berejiklian went on to make the same claim I’ve heard from every board member I’ve ever worked with when that person knows they’re conflicted — and should recuse themselves from the decision — but want to stay involved so they can influence it anyway. To quote Berejiklian: “[The decisions about the Wagga Wagga grants] had nothing to do with my personal life. It was on the merits of providing something for the community.” Her claim, in other words, is that despite the conflict, she was capable to making the decision in an unbiased way. 

But that’s not how the conflict rules work. A conflict of interest or duty is a structural fact, not an opinion. You have one if you’re asked to make a decision about something that impacts someone to whom you have — or could be perceived to have — loyalties. It’s hard to fathom how the former premier misunderstood this or how, given the broadness of that definition, her relationship with Maguire didn’t fit the bill and therefore should have been disclosed. 

Best, 

Leslie. 

Send your dilemmas to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line and you could get a reply from Dr Cannold in this column. We reserve the right to edit letters for length and clarity.