HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MEMBERS, STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:12): Woodcroft is a great area and there are very good schools in that area, too. I know they would like to be in my electorate but not everyone can be!

In relation to my motion, as printed on the Notice Paper, I move:

That this house adopts the following statement of principles for members of parliament:

1. Members of parliament are in a unique position of being accountable to the electorate. The electorate is the final arbiter of the conduct of members of parliament and has the right to dismiss them from office at elections.

2. Members of parliament have a responsibility to maintain the public trust placed in them by performing their duties with fairness, honesty and integrity, subject to the laws of the state and rules of the parliament, and using their influence to advance the common good of the people of South Australia.

3. Political parties and political activities are a part of the democratic process. Participation in political parties and political activities is within the legitimate activities of members of parliament.

4. Members of parliament should declare any conflict of interest between their private financial interests and decisions in which they participate in the execution of their duties. Members must declare their interests as required by the Members of Parliament (Register of Interests) Act 1983 and declare their interests when speaking on a matter in the house or a committee in accordance with the standing orders.

5. A conflict of interest does not exist where the member is only affected as a member of the public or a member of a broad class.

6. Members of parliament should not promote any matter, vote on any bill or resolution, or ask any question in the parliament or its committees, in return for any financial or pecuniary benefit.

7. In accordance with the requirements of the Members of Parliament (Register of Interests) Act 1983, members of parliament should declare all gifts and benefits received in connection with their official duties, including contributions made to any fund for a member's benefit.

8. Members of parliament should not accept gifts or other considerations that create a conflict of interest.

9. Members of parliament should apply the public resources with which they are provided for the purpose of carrying out their duties.

10. Members of parliament should not knowingly and improperly use official information, which is not in the public domain, or information obtained in confidence in the course of their parliamentary duties, for private benefit.

11. Members of parliament should act with civility in their dealings with the public, ministers and other members of parliament and the Public Service.

12. Members of parliament should always be mindful of their responsibility to accord due respect to their right of freedom of speech within Parliament and not to misuse this right, consciously avoiding undeserved harm to any individual.

And that:

(a) upon election and re-election to parliament, within 14 days of taking and subscribing the oath or making and subscribing an affirmation as a member of parliament, each member must sign an acknowledgement to confirm they have read and accept the statement of principles; and

(b) a message be sent to the Legislative Council transmitting the foregoing resolution and requesting its concurrence thereto.

This particular statement of principles—some would call it a code of conduct—was developed and endorsed in an all-party or joint committee of the parliament. It has not got to the point where the parliament has adopted it and I think that it is time that we did. As members can see at the bottom, if we agree to it, then it goes to the other place for consideration.

Some would say that the final arbiter in relation to the conduct of members is the electorate, and no one disputes that. In fact, the statement of principles acknowledges that, but the reality is that some people in what is euphemistically called 'a safe seat' are not subject to the same threat of dismissal as someone who is in what is also euphemistically called 'a marginal seat'. So, that argument, whilst in essence accurate, does not really reflect the reality of the political system.

However, if people do not like a member of parliament, they can get rid of that member of parliament, in theory at least. So, this statement does not in any way suggest that that situation should change. If the electors do not want a member, they should be able to vote him or her out.

Other professions have a code of conduct, and I do not see—and this was the view of the committee—why MPs should be different. We do have some current provisions relating to disclosure of things that we own or that family members own. We are subject to the standing orders of the parliament and can be dealt with through the Privileges Committee of the parliament as well.

I think it is important to spell out what is expected of an MP, and my motion states that we should perform our duties with fairness, honesty and integrity. One would hope that that is always the case. It acknowledges political parties and that political activities are part of the democratic process, so this statement reflects reality: that political parties exist and they are a legitimate part of the democratic process.

It reinforces the point that we should declare where there is a conflict of interest in terms of private financial interests and the carrying out of our duties. It makes clear that we should not promote things in here in return for any financial or pecuniary benefit. We should declare gifts and benefits. I must say that I do not seem to have received many gifts. I think it is only when you are a minister.

Mr Hanna: You were born with it.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The member for Mitchell is very kind and said that I was born with gifts, but I was actually born into a very financially poor family that was rich in other ways. I think it is only ministers. I saw the Premier yesterday receive a gift at the Motor Trade Association, but it did not look big enough to be a BMW. Members should not accept gifts if they create a conflict of interest. Members should use their public resources for the purpose of carrying out their duties, and they should not knowingly or improperly use official information.

This is a good one: members should act with civility in their dealings with the public. As to ministers—and that includes the new ministers—we should act in our dealings in a civil way, as we should with other members of parliament and the Public Service. We might take that for granted but I am aware of some cases, albeit rare cases, where members of parliament have not always acted in a civil way towards members of the Public Service. In fact, I know of a couple of situations where people have brought female members of the Public Service to tears, and that is completely unacceptable behaviour.

The statement of principles also reinforces the importance of freedom of speech within parliament and that it must not be misused, and that is important. It has not been misused in here for a long time, but I can remember a member getting up and saying something about someone's family which meant that the wife and the child, who were completely innocent of any wrongdoing, had to leave the state because of what was said. I think all members are mindful that we do have privilege in terms of what we can say but that means that we have a responsibility not to misuse or abuse it.

Also, the statement of principles states that, within 14 days of taking and subscribing the oath, each member should sign an acknowledgment confirming that they have read and accepted the statement of principles. I think that is incontestable in a sense. You should sign something to say that you have read and understood your obligations.

The final point is that, depending on what this house decides, the message be sent to the Legislative Council seeking its concurrence to the statement of principles. The statement is self-explanatory, so I do not need to add much more, but I encourage members to support it because I think it is important that MPs are not only doing the right thing but seen to be doing the right thing and that we do not have a double standard where we say to others that they should have a code of conduct when we are not prepared to have one ourselves.

I think if we adopt this statement of principles it can only help in terms of improving the standing of MPs in the community which is often under attack, usually unfairly, but if you do not have a code of conduct (a statement of principles), I think you leave yourself vulnerable to the question: what is your code of conduct, your statement of principles?

I urge members to support this statement of principles so that we can have it adopted. As I said earlier, a multi-party joint house committee looked at this matter and recommended the principles it in the form presented here today.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (12:20): I support the member for Fisher in his efforts to have a statement of principles adopted for members of parliament. The subject of the behaviour of members of parliament comes up frequently in my discussions with members of the community. Admittedly, most of the community see the worst of parliament. Question time is treated as a theatrical breast-thumping exercise, when aggression and name-calling is let loose, and that is what usually appears on the evening television news. So, people have a distorted idea of what goes on in parliament. I explain to people that, 90 per cent of the time, parliament is quite boring and we all agree with each other. I hope that that will be the case in respect of the motion of the member for Fisher.

No statement of principles or bit of paper that we sign can really guarantee the good behaviour of members of parliament. At the end of the day, it is up to our own conscience and, ultimately, it is up to political censure through the ballot box if members behave sufficiently badly. However, it can only help to have a clear statement of principles along the lines that the member for Fisher has suggested. There is nothing in there which any of us would really disagree with. It is simply a matter of whether or not we adopt this proposal put forward by the member for Fisher. I hope that members will see fit to do so.

Debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT