Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on this motion, which calls on the Leader of the House to bring forward urgently for the House's consideration the proposed changes to standing orders et cetera that would be needed to give effect to the draft code of conduct, which sits at appendix 5 of the recent report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.

Now, we need to be clear what the question is that we are considering as we debate this motion. The question is not whether it is a good and desirable idea that members of parliament maintain high standards of personal conduct. Of course, that is a highly desirable objective and all members of parliament ought to be seeking to do that whether there is a code in existence or not. The question before the House this morning is not whether there is, at least as a matter of theory, merit in a code of conduct which parliamentarians are required to subscribe to. I think we can all agree with the proposition that at least in theory there could be merit in such a code, although I would note that the particular code or the particular draft code which is attached to the relevant report of the House of Representatives standing committee is not necessarily the code which is the one that should be argued to be supported. But I think we can agree that, at least in theory, there could be merit in the notion of a code.

But the question that is before the House this morning is a very specific question. The question is whether we immediately and urgently ought to bring forward consideration of this proposed code so that the necessary changes can be made to standing orders, so that the code comes into force. There are, in my view, good reasons to be cautious about moving forward with the urgency which is contemplated by this motion. Regrettably, it can sometimes be the case that where this parliament rushes to do something urgently, we miss the opportunity for the more careful and considered reflection that might highlight to us some of the issues which need more careful consideration. A specific issue in my view, which ought to persuade us not to move forward as urgently as this motion proposes, is that as it presently stands there is no analogous draft code under consideration for senators. There is a procedure underway in the other place, where the Committee of Senators' Interests is considering the question of whether a draft code is required and, if so, what it ought to contain.

Therefore, if the motion that is before the House this morning were to be adopted and if the House were to move in accordance with what is urged in this motion, we would end up with the very odd outcome that there would be a code in place which would apply to one class of parliamentarians, but not to another. I think we can all agree that that would lead to undesirable and confusing consequences. In my view that is of itself sufficient reason not to proceed in the terms that the motion proposes because while the relevant senate committee is considering this matter and its applicability to the other place, that report is not due until late November this year. Therefore, in my view, any consideration of action in the immediate terms proposed in this motion would be ill advised. I think more generally that we do need to weigh up carefully the merits of the particular code which is proposed, and whether this collection of statements of higher principle adds the value which its proponents claim.

I note that one of the specific terms of the draft code is that: 'Members must uphold the laws of Australia and ensure that their conduct does not breach or evade these laws.' I respectfully submit that that particular provision of the code adds very little to the current circumstances, in which all of us as members of parliament and Australian citizens are already subject to the laws of Australia. I have not subjected the rest of the code to similar levels of detailed analysis, but I would suggest that that analysis is required before we can make a decision to adopt it.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context