Trust, governance and the space between lore and law

By JEREMY WOLF

Lately, I’ve found myself thinking less about governance and more about trust.

Not because governance isn’t important. It is. Every institution in Australia, whether it’s a government agency, listed company, community organisation or regulator, relies on governance frameworks to operate. There are rules, policies, charters, obligations and standards intended to ensure accountability and maintain public confidence.

Yet despite the growth of governance frameworks over recent decades, trust in many institutions appears to be moving in the opposite direction.

You can see it in the way people talk about government. You can see it in the way people consume media. You can see it in the scrutiny directed at major corporations following governance failures and public controversies. Across many parts of society, confidence in institutions that once commanded automatic respect appears to be under pressure.

Not the whole answer

The common response is usually more oversight, more reporting and more controls.

Perhaps that is part of the answer.

But I am not convinced it is the whole answer.

As a tax agent, I spend much of my working life dealing with systems that rely on public trust. Taxation only works because people believe the system is being administered fairly and consistently. Most taxpayers understand they have obligations. Most advisers understand that not every dispute will be resolved in their client’s favour.

What people struggle with is inconsistency.

When similar circumstances appear to produce different outcomes, when decision-making seems disconnected from published principles, or when the experience of dealing with an institution differs from the values it publicly promotes, trust begins to erode.

Not dramatically.

Usually gradually.

The Australian Taxation Office, like many public institutions, operates under a charter that outlines how taxpayers should expect to be treated. Fairness, respect, professionalism and accountability are all principles that should be welcomed.

But the existence of a charter alone does not create trust.

Judgement, culture, integrity

Trust is built when people experience those principles in practice.

The same observation can be applied far more broadly.

In recent years we have seen major corporations, consulting firms, regulators, governments and media organisations face questions that were never really about technical compliance. They were questions about judgement, culture, integrity and whether institutions were living up to the standards they expected of others.

People were not simply asking whether the rules had been followed.

They were asking whether those entrusted with responsibility had acted in a way that deserved trust.

During ORIC governance training recently, there was a robust discussion around the distinction between law and lore. It sparked one of the more engaging discussions of the program and has stayed with me ever since.

The more I reflected on it, the more I realised the discussion wasn’t limited to Indigenous governance. It raised broader questions about accountability, trust and what people expect from the institutions that hold power and influence in our society.

Law provides structure. It establishes obligations, boundaries and consequences. Modern society depends on it.

Lore, while differing across Nations and communities, has traditionally carried a different emphasis. It is deeply connected to relationships, responsibilities and an understanding that obligations extend beyond the individual. It recognises that decisions have consequences for community, for Country and for future generations.

The distinction is not about one being better than the other.

Rather, it highlights two different ways of thinking about accountability.

One asks whether obligations have been met.

The other asks whether responsibilities have been honoured.

Public confidence fragile

As I reflected on that discussion, I couldn’t help but wonder whether this is where some institutions are struggling.

Australia does not have a shortage of governance frameworks. If anything, we have more governance requirements, reporting obligations and oversight mechanisms than ever before.

Yet public confidence in many institutions appears increasingly fragile.

Perhaps that is because compliance and trust are not the same thing.

Compliance can be documented.

Trust is experienced.

Compliance can be measured against a framework.

Trust is measured by people’s interactions, observations and lived experience.

An organisation may meet every technical requirement placed upon it and still find itself facing a deficit of public confidence if people believe it has lost sight of its broader responsibilities.

That challenge is not unique to government agencies. It is not unique to corporations. It is not unique to the media.

It is a challenge facing institutions more broadly.

Conduct and consistency

The conversation between lore and law is not about replacing one system with another, nor is it about romanticising traditional governance. Rather, it serves as a reminder that accountability is about more than process.

It is about conduct.

It is about consistency.

And ultimately, it is about whether people believe institutions are acting in a manner worthy of trust.

For all the governance frameworks, charters and policies that exist today, trust remains something far more difficult to build and far easier to lose.

Perhaps that is because trust has never really been a product of authority.

It has always been a product of behaviour.

• Jeremy Wolf is Managing Director of Origin Digital & a Director of firstnationsnews.com.au