Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Today my speech in this matters of public interest debate addresses what I consider to be a matter of great public importance: the democratic relevance of our parliament in the 21st century. My motive for doing so arises partly from my attendance, in April of this year, at the World Ethics Forum held in Oxford, England, although I have had a long interest in these matters.

The theme of the Oxford conference was ‘leadership, ethics and integrity in public life’, and the purpose was to highlight the crisis of integrity in world affairs and to suggest ways to improve matters. While it is acknowledged that advances have been made, the challenge to develop more effective measures to promote integrity and to combat corruption persists. Australia is part of this challenge, because it also needs more effective measures to promote integrity and to combat corruption. In a report in the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday by Matthew Moore it was said:

Australian governments are so practised at frustrating the democratic process that legislation is urgently needed to try to make them accountable, a report urges. Authors of the paper, including a former Liberal speaker of the NSW Parliament, Kevin Rozzoli, and a former Labor speaker from the Victorian Parliament, Ken Coghill, say an ever-growing desire to maintain political advantage has eroded the way democracy operates.

“Information is denied, processes are manipulated and accountability is deliberately frustrated,” they write in their paper released yesterday, Why Accountability Must be Renewed.

“Ministerial accountability fails as governments seize and hold political advantage, putting partisan interests ahead of the democratic rights of citizens and their entitlement to be treated with integrity, dignity and respect.”

The promotion of integrity and ethics in public life, especially when applied to political governance, is essential. It is certainly essential to maintaining and improving healthy representative democracy. It is also essential to minimising corruption, a matter I addressed in my adjournment speech on 14 June this year. Drawing on papers presented by eminent speakers at the World Ethics Forum, I spoke about the importance of officials and companies upholding the United Nations Convention against Corruption.

In the context of ensuring our democracy remains a vigorous one, the particular issue I wish to focus on and revisit today is the need for the establishment of a joint parliamentary ethics committee. Such a body would oversee an enforceable code of conduct for ministers and members of parliament to help ensure political integrity and accountability. It would replace the current ministerial guide to conduct, which is not only insufficient to ensure that ethical standards in parliament are of the highest order but also inadequate to lift public trust in our system of government.

This is an issue that the Democrats have campaigned on for some considerable time, and it is embodied in my private senator’s bill, the Charter of Political Honesty Bill. The proposed code of conduct would clarify what is required of parliamentarians in the exercise of their duties. It would also act as a public statement on the minimum standards of behaviour that the public and the media can and should insist upon. Like other countries, it would necessarily establish an office of commissioner for ministerial and parliamentary ethics to enforce the code. It would allow any breaches of the code to be reported to the parliament by the commissioner and encompass appropriate disciplinary recommendations.

The Democrats regard this step as vital towards improving parliamentary standards and upholding the convention of responsible government. We also regard it as vital to addressing the crisis of trust in politicians—a crisis that is particularly disconcerting for the most potent institutional symbol of Australian democracy, namely, our federal parliament.

All members of parliament should be concerned at the findings of a study carried out by the Democratic Audit of Australia in May 2005, titled Public confidence in Australian democracy. It found that close to half of the survey respondents in most sociodemographic subgroups had little confidence in the federal parliament. Add to this their mistrust in politicians, the Public Service and the legal system and their perceived poor state of our democracy.

This may all be profoundly unfair at times, but this attitude is widespread. This crisis of trust bodes ill for Australian democracy. Our democracy cannot afford such distrust, particularly as it seems to be growing. As a result of attending the World Ethics Forum, I am convinced more than ever of the need for a code of conduct for our public officials. Britain did it in 1994. Under the then Conservative Prime Minister John Major, the high-powered Committee on Standards in Public Life was established. It is funded by the Cabinet Office and produces an annual report as well as a series of papers on expected standards of conduct. There is still no equivalent in Australia, and there should be.

Britain’s committee has set down seven principles that public office holders are expected to uphold. They are expected to display selflessness so that no action will result in financial gain or other benefits for themselves or for families or friends. They are expected to show integrity to ensure they are under no financial or other obligation that could influence them in performing their public duties. They are required to maintain objectivity so that their choices are based on merit when, for example, making public appointments, awarding contracts or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits. They are required to demonstrate accountability in all their decisions and must submit themselves to appropriate scrutiny. Openness is expected, whereby reasons are to be given for all decisions taken and information only restricted when the wider public interest demands.

Honesty is also expected. Any private interests relating to their public duties must be disclosed and steps taken to resolve any conflicts of interest that may arise. Lastly, and at all times, leadership is essential. I should add here that these principles are a work in progress. They have been subject to both quantitative and qualitative research in Britain in 2002 and 2004, and they are currently again under review, with a report due later this year. They have been adopted widely, either in response to specific recommendations from the committee or as a matter of best practice.

There are some, probably many, politicians who would argue that these principles do apply to many politicians in Australian parliaments. However, I would argue that they apply in theory and that they are contradicted in practice. Certainly, academic studies confirm this. Professor Elim Papadakis of the Australian Research Council and Pippa Norris of Harvard University have both found that while our citizens support democratic ideals, they are critical of how they actually work in practice. If this were not the case then there would not be so much public suspicion about only the moneyed having access to and influence over the policy process. There is little doubt that strings-attached political donations are of concern to voters. Also, there would not be such disquiet about governments using taxpayers’ money for political advertising—something the Democrats have attempted to outlaw through our Electoral Amendment (Political Honesty) Bill.

Such a practice has certainly escalated under this coalition government. Remember the Work Choices campaign. That would have to have been the most flagrant abuse of executive authority with partisan advertising. Just read last year’s Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report into government advertising and accountability. That Senate report lays bare the aggressive misuse of money by this government, as well as its defiance of proper accountability measures.

There also would not be so many allegations of governments being involved in political pork-barrelling. For instance, read the recent report of the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee inquiry into Regional Partnerships and the Sustainable Regions Program. Its recommendations call out for the government to introduce greater probity, accountability and process improvement in these programs. We also would not have government appointments being made on the basis of political patronage, rather than an independent merit based system like that which has operated in Britain, under the Nolan formula, for over a decade.

We also would not have a situation in which departing ministers and senior bureaucrats are able to take up consultancy work in areas closely linked to their portfolio interests. This is something that the Democrats have attempted to address through the introduction of the Ministers of State (Post Retirement Employment Restrictions) Bill. We would not have government activities being concealed when they ought not to be. Too often, commercial-in-confidence is put forward as a reason for the nondisclosure of requested information. We also would not have such concern about honesty and transparency, as revealed in the children overboard and wheat for weapons scandals.

We would not have a freedom of information system that obstructs our citizens from having the power to access and independently scrutinise government information—and that obstructs the media as well. The Democrats’ Freedom of Information Amendment (Open Government) Bill remains on the current bills list to address this accountability deficiency. We also would not be without effective legislation that would offer comprehensive protection for whistleblowers to ensure that people in the public sector can speak out against corruption and impropriety. This is a matter that the Democrats have attempted to address through the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill.

In sum, all of these shortcomings in government accountability mechanisms damage Australian democracy. It is made worse because the party system works against the conscience vote, the ruling party’s members are subservient to the executive and self-regulation is erratic in its standards and enforcement. We have Australian governments that consider themselves bigger than the democratic system—arguably, reason enough for them to be put out to pasture.

It may appear that I consider a body akin to Britain’s Committee on Standards in Public Life, and its principles, to be the panacea to all the accountability problems I have encountered and outlined. I do not. Rather, I am of the opinion that such a process would go some way to turning around the public’s pretty grim attitude toward our politicians. It would go some way to assist in restoring public confidence in our parliament and in our Australian democracy. However, ultimately it is the quality and integrity of political candidates and political incumbents that will raise standards, and the way in which they conduct themselves.

In my Joint Committee on Electoral Matters Committee report into the 2004 election I have tried to show how political governance and systems could be improved. There should be an independent watchdog that could oversee matters of ethics and integrity in public life. When reading the West Australian on May 22 of this year, an article titled ‘Unchecked sleaze tarnishes Blair’ caught my eye. The Blair referred to, of course, is Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair. And the sleaze refers to some of Britain’s latest political scandals—namely, the investigation into House of Lords seats being awarded in return for loans or donations to the Labour Party in Britain and the ‘cash-for-honours’ or ‘donations-for-gongs’ outrage.

What is interesting about this article is that it draws on comments made by the anti-sleaze watchdog, Sir Alistair Graham, the man appointed by Mr Blair to chair the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Sir Alistair Graham condemns Mr Blair for not treating the standards seriously enough. He also warns politicians to change their behaviour, because a survey carried out by the committee revealed the public’s perception of them as pretty grim. This is the system working: a man appointed on merit to watch over standards in public life fearlessly criticising those who appointed him when they breach their duty.

The point is that having set standards for public life is not the only answer. However, having a reputable and autonomous watchdog to oversee their adherence is vital to the advancement of democracy in the 21st century. It needs to be accompanied by a committee which represents both houses of the parliament and in which members of parliament can reflect on recommendations from such a commissioner and deliver an appropriate remedy where that is possible. In Australia, the public deserves, if not demands, a more powerful commitment to honesty and accountability from our public office holders.

Returning to the way in which I began this address, we have had the release this week of a paper, and the timing of both my remarks and that paper are propitious. I saw an article by Michelle Grattan, the senior journalist in the gallery for many years, commenting on that paper, and it has had wide currency elsewhere. This is a cause which is not the property of any one political party or any one parliamentarian. It is a cause which needs to be taken up by many parliamentarians; it is a cause which needs to be taken up by the media; it is a cause which needs to be taken up by public interest groups so that we can see an advance in the standards in public life.