Common Ground and Royal Commission Outcomes Compromised

Common Ground and Royal Commission Outcomes Compromised

Torrey Orton, with assistance from Peter Campbell http://petercampbell.blogspot.com

May 4, 2009

Our times are ones for conviction. They encourage us to be clear, often at the cost of real complexity. We are so loaded with information, and claims on our attention, that it is highly unlikely we will make personal choices rationally. Rather, we will be increasingly likely to rely on our habitual assessment and solution systems. They are what we have easily to hand.

The Victorian Government announcement today that they will commit $200 million to fire prevention, including increased fuel burn-offs, exemplifies this irrationality. It is, in fact, an explicit commitment to irrationality in public processes. The budget is the excuse but pandering to electorate slivers is the reason. These slivers contain pre-digested Commission outcomes, announced in the public campaigns to indict others (Greens in particular) for fuel reduction failures. The science on fuel contribution to fire intensity and speed is at worst conflicted.

All this somewhat knackers my enterprise here. The Government is already implicitly accepting an interested argument over the deliberations of a cast of thousands. It proves the prescience of some of what follows (written before the $200 million deluge) and does not disprove the truth of the attached propositions; just renders them prematurely enfeebled. So it is with the non-political. I should have listened to Doug Cameron’s (then a union official on the rise) warning 20 years ago at an IR event I lectured in: “Everything is political” or words to that effect. I continue because this natural characteristic of human systems is long-term dysfunctional for our times.

Thinking habits

The forces which sustain this system apply most clearly to choices about life and death matters like personal safety from bushfires. We all come to any adult experience with a wealth of existing judgments and supporting evidence(s) for them. These make up our foundational intellectual infrastructure contents. They have the character of change-resistant physical habits. They constitute a predisposed blame architecture. They also have some truth status, usually sustained by like-minded believers. In this they are a predisposed solution system (though not always to the problems of the present).

Stress and simple-mindedness

The flexibility and adaptability of our intellectual infrastructures (at personal and group levels) are severely strained by the ‘reach’ they are forced to make to grasp the world(s) we are addressing or engaging. The greater our distance from tangible and testable facts the more simplistic our grasp of reality. This is by brain system default not by personal defect of aspiration or engagement technique.

Distance makes the mind grow fainter which, under stress, strengthens it slight grasp with intensity – that is a move towards the fundamentalist attitude in a deep sense. This is not a religious matter but it produces socio-psychological climates for religious-like thinking and behaviour across all domains of human activity.

I say this not to disparage or discourage but to acknowledge the realities of the influence challenges which confront the Commission. And, similar will continue to confront us whatever they manage to salvage from their betrayal by the Government. Damage to the credibility of public discourse / debate is the greatest loss, not personal affront.

Change resistance

Another force cutting against development of common ground(s) may be the deep commitment of existing power holders of all sorts to any opening which could facilitate others getting a piece of their action. Cultures have disappeared behind the smoke of such conflagrations. When common ground is lost conflagration or freezing is the result; fire or ice, both are nice for endings.

We know that judgment depends on fundamental values and perspectives (theories) which are very change resistant. We can see the struggle among competing ‘theories’ occurring daily between, climate changers and deniers (sceptics are a related bunch which I belong to temperamentally), between free marketers and state interventionists (neolibs and Keynesians?), between one culture and another. These struggles are conducted by adversarial means whose aim is winning, not the truth. ‘Facts’ become the ammunition of argument. The objective is a consummate union of souls around shared god(s). Therefore, finding common facts is doubtful.

Yet, this is a time when some truth, some reliability of perception and judgment, is necessary.
So, it is a critical task for the Commission to find or create common ground in facts and constructs and values from which may arise shared beliefs and opinions out of which may emerge shareable judgments.

Common ground

There are some compelling examples of common ground shared on some of the topics under consideration by the Royal Commissions.

One example is the protection of native forests in our reserve system – especially old growth forests and water catchments. Broadly, there is consensus across the logging industry, government, and conservation organisations on the general principle of protecting biodiversity, our natural heritage and the aesthetic appeal / value of such forests. However, there are significant differences about the quantity and locations of forests that require protection. The logging and woodchip industries argue that enough forest is already protected in reserves; the Victorian Government is still in the progress of adding some small areas to the reserve system; and conservation groups are asking for several more forests to be protected. There are also some significant differences on the appropriate management regimes for native forests.

Another example of common ground is the necessity and desirability of volunteer contributions to bushfire prevention and response measures. Tensions between professional and volunteer service provision do not stand on disregard for the latter but discussable boundaries of competence and capability distributed across the broad face of fire prone Victoria.

The Commission, and others doing similar work, could benefit from identifying the expected, or more powerfully, the achieved common grounds when reporting their work outcomes. It would give them credibility and us hope.

Wellbeing and Royal Commission Outcomes

Wellbeing and Royal Commission Outcomes
Torrey Orton
April 30, 2009

What’s it all about, this Commission? It’s all about human well-being in Victorian bushfire prone areas. We are concerned with our areas but extend this concern to the experience of others in similar ones (across Australia, and in California and Greece for instance). The underlying question of the Commission’s inquiries is, ‘What is a viable context for human well-being in such areas?’ For many this will include the well-being of indigenous plants and animals, too.

The Black Saturday Royal Commission has the responsibility to recommend on:

1) The preparation and planning for future bushfire threats and risks, particularly the prevention of loss of life.
2) Land use planning and management, including urban and regional planning
3) Fireproofing of housing and other buildings, including materials used in construction
4) The emergency response to the fires
5) Public communication and community advice systems and strategies
6) Training, infrastructure, and overall resourcing needs.

The last is the outcome delivery system, the means through which the first 5 are implemented. So, how it is shaped matters more than the others, since without good implementation the Commission will have been just another Government ‘talkfest’. At least three pre-conditions are important to success. One, that the implementation of new ways of doing anything is understood to be iterative, not a one-shot stamping of a new impression on old materials. Two, that the processes are open and transparent (including no places to hide like ‘commercial in confidence’). And, three, that implementation is well-rounded: its parts and processes are interconnected and interdependent. The last is the focus of the following discussion.

All of these recommendations will touch directly or indirectly on aspects of human well-being. There are models of well-being around. One I like is used by Australian criminologists to drive a new approach to sex offender rehabilitation – where re-offending is an all too usual result. Their model looks like this:

1) Life (including healthy living and functioning) 2) Knowledge 3) Excellence in play and work (including mastery experiences) 4) Excellence in agency (i.e., autonomy and self-directedness) 5) Inner peace (i.e., freedom from emotional turmoil and stress) 6) Friendship (including intimate, romantic and family relationships) 7) Community 8) Spirituality (in the broad sense of finding meaning & purpose in life) 9) Happiness 10) Creativity

*From: The Treatment of Sex Offenders: Risk Management and Good Lives.
Tony Ward, Claire A Stewart,

I am not too excited about happiness and inner peace as core human needs (I think ‘interest’ does better because it isn’t turned in one direction – a ‘positive’ one - about outcomes). While we can dispute the specifics of models, we have a sense of what it means to be human. That is, we won’t dispute well-being as a human need, just its components and configurations. All societies have well-being assumptions. Our models are also implicit most of the time, until decision demand times arrive with high life/death outcomes.

Let’s apply part of our model to the sixth outcome - Training, infrastructure, and overall resourcing needs. The relevant parts may be life (1), knowledge (2), excellence in play and work (3) and community (7). For example’s sake I’ll take the resourcing element as one focus for application of well-being criteria. What would it mean to do this? A series of questions which can be used to establish the parameters of resource decisions and for tracking their implementation:

Life
Will these resources in this configuration best provide for added safety within the technical constraints and not detract from other life sustaining matters?

Knowledge
Will these resources provide the best chance(s) of increasing our understanding (knowledge) of fire related factors as they change across their total spectrum? Eg – is it clear where across various provisions, systematic data gathering and interpretation is necessary and how will it occur? This understanding must be increased at three levels at least: state, locality and family / individual.

Excellence in play and work
Are the programs associated with fire danger amelioration providing best opportunities for local stakeholders (business, residents, etc.) to improve / increase their work and play?

Community
What affects on the whole populations of various localities will the total set of programs have, how will this be monitored, what feedback systems are built in…?

A similar application of selected well-being parameters should be made to the other two parts of item 6 (training and infrastructure) , and each of the other 5 outcome areas, and then across the set as a whole. Attention should be paid to which well-being parameters must apply to assessment of all outcomes.

Underlying all efforts may be this mantra: “It’s just not affordable”.
Access Economics CEO Chris Richardson on ABC 7:30 Report, 280409, talking about the coming financial constraints of the GFC.

This will be at play in the Commission’s decision-making, too. A rounded, well-being based approach will enhance the value achieved from their work. Lack of it will lead to an assumption ruling the proceedings – the neolib assumption about public debt and private provision before which all still kowtow since there is no other accessible language for public discourse!! This one is employable almost with impunity because we cannot know what the future will bring to the ‘economy’. This fact, and its attendant diversely reported feelings of fear, anxiety and anger, will tend to drive everyone and every public process (where those feelings are constantly intentionally exaggerated) to lowest common denominator thinking.