CODES OF CONDUCT
should these standards be codified i.e. written into a code and subject to some form of sanction if breached? In either case, should you as an MP be offered support in developing your capacity to recognize ethical issues and apply your own unique values to addressing ethical issues (ethical competence). Let us first deal with codification.
It has an ancient lineage. The 1215 Magna Carta was a codification of the relationship between the monarch and the British people. It continues to be a foundational code establishing the accepted conduct of the monarch. Its principles have contributed to the incremental evolution of our parliamentary democratic system. If we think of it from a systems perspective, we recognize that systems operate more effectively – lead to better outcomes – where there is a moderate level of regulation within the system. A society (social system) without
internal controls to restrain power tends to degenerate into severe inequality, dominated by oligarchies (i.e. by a small number of very powerful individuals or groups and large numbers of powerless, disaffected subjects) and lesser overall well-being. Of course the reverse can be as bad, albeit different: a society with strong, oppressive internal controls tends to rigidity, inflexibility and incapacity to respond innovatively to society’s problems. Some will argue that very few
MPs behave unethically and therefore they do not need a code to avoid wrong-doing. Whilst it may be true that overall few offend, the record shows that some do, that sometimes large numbers do and that instances and even what seem like outbreaks of unethical conduct are unpredictable. A few examples make the point: cash for questions (UK, 1995); abuse of entitlements (UK, numerous MPs, pre 2010 elections); inappropriate claims of entitlement (Australia, numerous MPs and Senators, 2012); diversion of public funds to political party via government contracts (Canada, 1993 to 2003); improper intervention in regulation of broadcasting (Canada,
2013); numerous, diverse breaches of fund-raising, disclosure and other provisions (USA). The abuse of entitlements by
British MPs was especially widely reported and it is difficult to believe that any MP anywhere could have been unaware of them and of the clear indication that the behaviour was unacceptable. These breaches demonstrate that
despite MPs own values and their near-certain knowledge of breaches elsewhere, breaches remain all too common. It is important to note that some MPs enter a parliamentary career with very little experience in dealing with the types of ethical issues discussed here and hence limited relevant skill. Just as the continuing occurrence
of criminal acts necessitates criminal law, so measures are necessary to help define unethical conduct, guide MPs in their observance and provide sanctions for breaches. These measures may take a number of forms including programmes to help MPs develop their ethical competence, advisory services, codes, provisions for investigation of alleged breaches and provisions for sanctions.
Ethical advice Ethical programmes for MPs are unlikely to succeed if designed as instruction on conduct that is acceptable or deemed unethical. Rather programmes should aim to facilitate the development of a culture of integrity amongst MPs and should help each MP to develop ethical competence i.e. to develop his or her own values, to use them to recognize issues requiring ethical judgement and to apply moral reasoning to resolving those issues. As an MP, advice from a
trusted, disinterested source can be invaluable. In Australia that is available from the St James Ethics Centre, completely confidential and cost-free. However many MPs prefer
a service directly linked to the Parliament, such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (UK), the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner (Canada), and the
44 | The Parliamentarian | 2014: Issue One
Queensland Integrity Commissioner (Parliament of Queensland, Australia). They are not empowered to investigate or make findings on alleged breaches of a code. The trust and value placed on the
services of such an adviser is based on the total confidentiality of any conversations they have with MPs.
Function of codes Codes serve a different function. They represent the Parliament’s definition of the limits of acceptable conduct. A summary of several recent codes was prepared by Deirdre McKeown of the Australian Parliamentary Library and published in 2012. Those and other codes have a
range of titles reflecting differences in their objectives and provisions e.g.: Members of parliament code of conduct (UK); Code of Conduct [forthcoming 2014]. Lok Sabha, Code of Conduct, Rajya Sabha (India); Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (Canada); Code of Conduct with Regard to Financial Interests, South Africa; Rules of the House
of Representatives Code of Official Conduct, and the Senate Code of Official Conduct (USA); requirement for disclosure of pecuniary interests provided for in the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives (New Zealand); proposed Members of Parliament Code of Conduct (Australia). At a supra-national level, the EU has the Code of Conduct for Members of the European Parliament with respect to financial interests and conflicts of interest (EU). A particularly useful source is
the Handbook on Parliamentary Ethics and Conduct. A Guide for Parliamentarians by Greg Power, published by The Global Task Force on Parliamentary Ethics. It provides advice on the context, design and enforcement of codes. Although codes do vary, almost all
include provisions for the avoidance of conflicts of interest. There is usually a requirement to disclose assets and sources of income, which are recorded in a register and made public. The variations between codes provide opportunities for Parliaments to learn from each other’s experience
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