This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
CODES OF CONDUCT


the adjudication of the facts surrounding an alleged breach of any section of the Code by a peer. Instead, the Committee is responsible for the consideration of the inquiry report and, if the report establishes that a breach has occurred, recommending appropriate sanctions. A list of remedial measures or sanctions included in the new Code sets out the responses available, from least to most intrusive. The ultimate decision of which sanction or remedial measure to apply rests with the Senate Chamber as a whole. This three-staged process ensured that there would be no ambiguity as to how the Senate would be obliged to react if one of its members was suspected of breaching the Code.


Further strengthening the Code’s transparency, the Senate Ethics Officer was given express


“As Winston Churchill once said ‘To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.’ ”


authority to provide general information about the Senate ethics and conflict of interest regime to the public and to inform the public about the status of a preliminary review or inquiry. While simplifying the enforcement process and increasing openness and transparency are virtues in themselves, a key consideration was that these changes would give the Code new value and currency as a guide to help inform and educate Senators and the public alike.


By articulating the principles of public integrity and trust to which Senators are expected to adhere, they gave effect to the Code’s new title: The Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators. Broadened in scope beyond the erstwhile almost exclusive focus on matters of conflict of interest, the new Code combines guidance for Senators’ daily behaviour with a clear statement of the procedures for addressing real or apparent breaches of the Code.


Sharing Best Practice As parliaments around the world continue in their efforts to develop appropriate means for governing their members’ ethics and behaviour, it is perhaps unsurprising that it is these procedural considerations that pose the greatest challenge. In early April 2015, I was privileged to participate in


a workshop hosted by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association at Monash University in Melbourne.


The workshop provided an opportunity for parliamentarians from around the Commonwealth to deliberate on a set of Recommended Benchmarks for Parliamentary Codes of Conduct developed under the leadership of Associate Professor Hon. Dr. Ken Coghill.


Our discussions revealed that, while parliamentarians generally agree on the principles that should guide us for the preservation of public trust in our respective legislatures, the mechanisms and procedures that make such Codes enforceable are best developed to reflect the nuances of each jurisdiction. Few who are truly committed to public service would dispute the universal importance of


114 | The Parliamentarian | 2015: Issue Two


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  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76