codes of conduct for Members
RULES FOR Parliamentarians: Recent developments concerning the codes of conduct for Members Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the recent Review of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Legislative Assembly, the circumstances which led to the Review, and the outcomes of the Review.
DrChrisBourkeMLA
is a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory. He is a Government Whip, Assistant Speaker and Chair of the Standing Committee on Health, Ageing, Community and Social Services. First elected in 2011, he has served as ACT Minister for Education and Training, Industrial Relations, Corrections, and Aboriginal & Torres Strait IslanderAffairs. Prior to entering politics, he ran a successful dental practice and graduated from Melbourne University as the first Aboriginal to complete a dental degree.
History Since 1995 there have been four inquiries and proposals to adopt a Code of Conduct for Members. The Code that was eventually adopted in 2005, and later amended in 2006, was the result of an inquiry conducted by the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure, on the recommendation of a previous Select Committee on Privileges. In a recent review of the Code of Conduct the Assembly’s Ethics and Integrity Adviser, Mr Stephen Skehill, noted that the Code did not rate particularly well for commitment, content or compliance which he considered to be the essentials of any Parliamentary Code of Conduct.1 His specific criticisms were: “The opening passage of its Preamble is, by comparison to Codes of Conduct in other jurisdictions, a relatively shallow statement of principle; The second paragraph of the Preamble and the following statement of Duties as Members of the Assembly express important
282 | The Parliamentarian | 2015: Issue Four
principles, but are not stated to be part of the Code itself; The sections of the Resolution expressly stated to be the Code generally deal only with “rules” rather than principles; The language of the Code is internally inconsistent but generally that of imposition rather than voluntary commitment; The passage on conflict of interest is expressed in terms of “personal conflicts of interest” rather than conflicts between public duty and private life; The obligation on nonemployment of family members is stated in terms that would extend to a Member’s private business ventures; While the Code requires professional courtesy and respect to be shown to Assembly staff, it is silent on Members’ treatment of others such as constituents or public servants and others appearing as witnesses before Assembly Committees; and While the section on Use of Entitlements requires that “appropriate” use be made of entitlements and resources, it does not extend to complying with the conditions on which such are made available, such as periodic reporting and acquittal.”1 Investigation of a possible breach of the code In February 2012, a Member was alleged to have breached
the Code of Conduct.2 The essence of the allegations were that the Member’s staff had not lodged fortnightly records of their working hours over several years and therefore any accrued time-of-in-lieu could not be calculated. The Member’s staff were active in the 2010 Federal election when, under Assembly rules, they should have been on properly approved leave whilst undertaking electioneering. Furthermore one staff member was president of his party’s ACT branch and, it was alleged, rarely attended his designated workplace at the ACT Legislative Assembly.3 On Tuesday 14 February 2012, the ‘Motion of Grave Concern - Order to Provide Written Statement - Reference to Independent Auditor’ was moved in the Assembly (see opposite page). Subsequent to this motion a team was appointed by the Speaker to conduct an independent workplace audit, which came to be known as the McLeod Review. This Review examined staffing arrangements and whether or not appropriate payments to staff were made in the office of the Leader of the Opposition for the period 2009-12.5 The Speaker said that “In selecting the audit team I have taken the time to seek the views