CODES OF CONDUCT
Left and right: the exterior of the Parliament of Australia, and the Sovereign entrance to the Houses of Parliament, United Kingdom. Both Parliaments have encountered cases of unethical conduct by its Members.
duty, we should ask: does the very notion of democratic rule imply that the Parliament and the elected representatives who fill its benches have a fiduciary relationship with the people? In other words, if democracy means rule which is responsive to the preferences of the people, each citizen having an equal voice, then should the decision-makers entrusted with making decisions act consistently with the best interests of the society as perceived by its citizens? If this argument is accepted, then it is unethical, but not illegal, for MPs to put special interests ahead of the public interest in the legislative and other decisions they make in Parliament or as members of the political Executive. This argument could be extended further, to include choices between
the public interest having regard to the preponderance of scientific or other evidence or populist decisions which carry emotional appeal and associated electoral support. Here we must ask: is this a question of ethics or more properly a matter for democratic political discourse? Who should answer that question: those with vested interests in the answer (MPs, or more particularly, a parliamentary majority) or the citizens and if the latter, at the ballot box? If it is the MPs, does a code have a role?
Public trust? The exercise of a public trust is another, deeper issue. In a similar manner to the argument that Parliament has a fiduciary duty to the citizens, so it can be argued that
it exercises a public trust in that it acts as a trustee to protect matters which are shared in common by the community, such as public lands, waterways and the atmosphere. Again in this case, in making decisions about the use or management of such an item, the Parliament and its MPs are expected to put the public interest ahead of special interests. However, current litigation in USA
takes this further and seeks judicial support for a positive responsibility to protect crucial natural resources from harm, in accordance with the Public Trust Doctrine. Atmospheric Trust Litigation (ATL) launched in many States and federally by teenagers and young adult supported by Our Children’s Trust, argues that state Legislatures (Parliaments), governors
and federal agencies should be compelled to protect the atmosphere from pollution that is causing global warming and climate change. ATLs have been upheld in some courts and continue to be fiercely contested. At its heart is an ethical question: do MPs have an ethical responsibility to take positive action to prevent harm or should this be a matter for political discourse?
Why codify? These examples set the scene to consider whether it is enough to rely on you as an MP to know, understand and practice the ethical standards that you are expected to uphold in your conduct both individually and collectively as a member of the parliamentary institution. Alternatively,
The Parliamentarian | 2014: Issue One | 43
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72