Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) endorses the draft code of conduct at Appendix 5 of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests, Draft Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament; and

(2) requests the Leader of the House to bring forward urgently for the House’s consideration the proposed changes to standing orders and resolutions of the House necessary to give effect to the code, procedures for considering complaints under the code, and for the role of the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests in oversight of the code.

This code of conduct was agreed upon in 2010 by all parties and was point 19 in the Agreement for a better Parliament. There it is identified that:

A cross-party working group and inquiry process will be established to draft a code of conduct for members of the House and the Senate. Once established, this code will be overseen by the Privileges Committee.

I hope we all agree, and we did agree at the time, that this code is not the whole answer to better standards; but it remains one component and therefore, as that one component, has value. It is a document of wide principles rather than a prescriptive document. It is true that it can be criticised as 'stating the bleeding obvious' but sometimes, like now, stating the bleeding obvious is necessary.

The code of conduct is a reference point and reminder for all MPs, prior to any acts or omissions, of what basic and broad principles are expected. It is also a reference point and provides guidance for all MPs when a fellow MP is behaving outside these stated broad principles and values. This is not to overstate the ability of this code of conduct to deliver in isolation: I also accept the criticism that this code of conduct lacks sanctions and that it is not prescriptive in what we do when someone is in breach of the code of conduct itself.

In my view this is not to be answered today and should not be answered by the equivalent of a code of conduct 'Crimes Act'. Rather, over time, this will be answered by precedent, the collective will of MPs as to how they want to use the code and, ultimately, by the Privileges Committee. The danger in any of this is not that there are not appropriate sanctions attached; it is any loss of the tripartisanship that has been expressed to date and the attempt of any group of MPs to rip it down and ignore it. If that is allowed to occur, rest assured that the destroyer or destroyers will succeed and this code will effectively mean nothing. If, however, cross-parliament support for the code of conduct remains, and there is an investment by all in the status of the code, then its place will be one of value and the issue of sanctions will largely look after itself. It is appropriate that the privileges committees and parliaments of the future determine penalties and sanctions dependent on the context of the issues at that time. Neither I nor any member in this place can answer the questions of the future now; I can only encourage the opportunity to be grabbed right now and this code of conduct—a broad document of guidance and reference—implemented.

If a code of conduct is good enough for most sporting and volunteer organisations, most businesses, most parliaments and the ministerial wing then it is surely not too much to ask that one be implemented for Australia's politicians. It will not answer all issues or improve all behaviour but it may help. We never really know the true worth of documents like codes of conduct but who knows: late one night, when an MP is weighing up what to do on some matter, that MP may refer to the code to help shape their thoughts, and that is where the worth of this document lies. If it plays that role—nothing more and nothing less—than it has served a purpose. I therefore put the code of conduct to the House for support.

See this speech in context