Public Sector Informant: Think politicians should have a code of conduct? You're not alone

The instrument of execution was a report from the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, supported by both major parties, recommending against the National Integrity (Parliamentary Standards) Bill introduced by the Greens last year. The bill had proposed a statement of values and a code of conduct for parliamentarians. It also included the establishment of two statutory officers: a parliamentary integrity adviser, to offer ethical advice to parliamentarians and their staff, and a parliamentary standards commissioner, to assist other bodies with the investigation and resolution of alleged breaches of the code of conduct.

The bill closely followed an earlier bill that was introduced in 2018 by then-independent MP Cathy McGowan, and allowed to lapse with the dissolution of Parliament in 2019. Ms McGowan was herself picking up the baton from her predecessors as independents, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor, who had extracted a promise from Julia Gillard to examine a code of parliamentary ethics. In response, the House of Representatives' Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests had produced a useful report which canvassed the options and recommended a code of conduct overseen by a commissioner for parliamentary standards on the United Kingdom and Canadian models.

The report received little support. Both major parties opposed its recommendations, while the Greens were lukewarm, putting their effort into championing a federal anti-corruption commission. Since then, the integrity lobby has united behind the campaign for an anti-corruption commission, overshadowing the parliamentary standards project.

Ms McGowan appended her parliamentary standards bill to a bill advocating a national integrity commission, a pairing followed by the Greens when they introduced two bills closely following the McGowan models. In each case, the integrity (i.e. anti-corruption) commission issue received greater prominence and advocacy than parliamentary standards. Indeed, the Greens waited almost a year from their National Integrity Commission Bill (2018), passed by the Senate and at present before the House, before introducing their parliamentary standards bill. Parliamentary standards, it seems, has become an issue deserving of pious lip-service but not worth the expenditure of any political capital.

Does this neglect matter? Is Parliament turning its back on a valuable means of improving its ethical standards and levels of public confidence?

International experience suggests that the adoption of parliamentary codes of conduct does little to improve public confidence in politicians. Such codes of conduct have been typically introduced in response to some scandal, such as the United Kingdom's "cash for questions" affair, where MPs were discovered to have received payment in return for asking particular questions in Parliament. They are also part of a worldwide trend which has seen codes of conduct as a remedy for unethical behaviour in many organisations and professions, private as well as public.

In new or emerging democracies, establishing a code of conduct for legislators may be a valuable part of the process in helping to inculcate democratic values in both politicians and the wider public. But in established democracies, such as Australia, the evidence is lacking. Public distrust in Parliament is largely based on perceptions of politicians' behaviour in the media and in parliamentary question time, and focuses on their lack of truthfulness and their partisan gamesmanship. Codes of conduct may include high-minded aspirations towards honesty, impartiality and the public interest, but they are not enforceable in practice and make little headway against a well-entrenched, adversarial political culture.

READ MORE:

However, independent commissioners can have more success with monitoring relatively mundane matters such as registers of interests and travel and accommodation expenses. In Australia's parliament, the travel-related expenses of federal parliamentarians are now administered by the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (IPEA). The authority was established by prime minister Malcolm Turnbull in 2017 in response to scandals over MPs' misuse of expenses for party-political or personal reasons. Compared with parliamentary commissioners elsewhere, the authority is limited in its scope, having no role in monitoring or advising on MPs' financial interests and no responsibility for a code of conduct.

However, the IPEA's existence, not envisaged in the original Oakeshott/Windsor proposals, does complicate the case for a separate commissioner. As some of the submissions to the Senate inquiry suggest, any increased regulation of the ethical behaviour of parliamentarians would be achieved more rationally by expanding the jurisdiction of IPEA, rather than by creating a new body with consequent problems of overlapping responsibilities. In particular, the IPEA could take over the administration of the register of members' interests from the Department of Finance, opening the way for more transparency and more independent advice for members on possible conflicts of interest. At some future date, the authority could also undertake the functions of broader ethical advising, including the adoption of a code of conduct.

Such initiatives must await resolution of the larger issue of an anti-corruption integrity commission. They will also require political leadership more sympathetic to improving standards of public integrity. Prime Minister Scott Morrison considers such matters to be elite preoccupations of little interest to average mum and dad voters. Indeed, if Morrison rather than Turnbull had been prime minister at the time of the travel rorts scandals three years ago, it is doubtful whether the IPEA would have been established. Morrison would most likely have closed down discussion and ridden out the storm. Integrity reformers need to play a very long game.