In recent days, our media have covered two “scandals” involving allegations against public figures of failing to adequately address identifiable conflicts of interest.

Our Prime Minister is under attack for accepting upgraded flights from Qantas and thereby placing himself in scenarios where later political decisions may have been influenced by the largesse of Qantas. The inaugural head of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, Justice Paul Brereton, has been criticised for not recognising that, in declaring a conflict of interest, his response lacked judgement as he failed to remove himself fully from the making of a controversial decision to decline to further investigate several people involved in the “Robodebt” catastrophe. Of these two instances, the latter surprises me more as I had long imagined that persons trained in law would have a strong appreciation of the seriousness of avoiding conflicts of interest and being seen to strictly avoid them.

These two instances raise matters of public importance as conflicts of interest pervade community, political and commercial life. As a minimum, any discussion of conflicts of interest should encompass its definition and advice as to what should be done when a conflict is identified. In both domains, problems immediately arise. Thus, for example, definitions of conflict of interest may be influenced by conflicts of interest. And advice on how to address a conflict of interest almost never emphasises the impact of the subconscious mind on an individual’s perception as to whether a conflict of interest actually exists. Much of the research into conflicts of interest and the impact of competing interests is based on well-designed studies of........

© Pearls and Irritations