HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-06-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:32): 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.

Members may recall—although some have come into the parliament only since the committee met—that there was a joint committee to consider a code of conduct for members of parliament. It had the Hons Gazzola, Lawson and Xenophon, Ms Chapman, the Hon. John Rau and me. That committee adopted those principles on 14 October 2004, nearly eight years ago, and since then I have been trying to get parliament to adopt them.

At the time the report was handed down six Australian legislatures had a code of conduct. South Australia did not, and it still does not have one. Most professions and many public and private organisations have codes of conduct, including South Australian public sector employees. I also understand that the government, through its ICAC proposal, is planning to incorporate a code of conduct. I do not know the precise wording of it, but if what we do in the house today in relation to this motion encourages the government to pursue that particular avenue, and it is similar to what is proposed here, then I would be very pleased. I do not think that we, as members of parliament, can ask others to have a code of conduct and to behave in a particular way if we do not have the same process applied to us.

The point was made when we had that inquiry—and the member for Bragg can probably recall this—that members of parliament are ultimately subject to the decision of their electorate; that is, if your electorate decides it does not want you, because of your behaviour or whatever, then people can cast their vote accordingly. Obviously that is true, but in practice it would depend on a whole range of factors, including whether it is a so-called safe seat. There is a whole range of factors, so it does not necessarily mean that a member is held accountable for particular actions. They could be, but it may not necessarily happen that way.

At the outset I should say that this is my 23rd year in here, and I cannot recall MPs of any party or grouping behaving in a way that has been outrageous in terms of the law. We have had a couple of members of parliament who have been dealt with for misleading the house—which is a euphemism for telling an untruth, a porky pie—but, contrary to what the media portrays and what the public often thinks, MPs are very much law-abiding citizens. I see that the Sunday Mail had a bit of a go the other day about MPs who might have a bit of lead in their foot. I do not know what it is, but MPs tend to be picked on with regard to highlighting what might be a temporary aberration when other groups in the community are not held to account in the same way.

MPs are under constant scrutiny. All members would know that. If you go to the supermarket, if you go to a country town people know exactly who you are and they keep a close eye on what you do. So we do have constant observation. The media are always watching. Someone once described to me the profession of journalism as being akin to sharks, circling around waiting to devour a politician. I guess the reality is that politicians, like journalists, all want to be on the front page—for the right reasons. So we are constantly under scrutiny.

You only have to look at Craig Thomson in terms of federal parliament. As far as I know he has not been subject to any legal or criminal prosecution. He may have done some bad things, I do not know, but the way he has been treated not even a war criminal would be treated in Australia. So, anyone who thinks MPs are not under scrutiny is deluding themselves. I am not saying this statement of principles is perfect. It is what the committee—made up of our colleagues—came up with. The committee had representation from Independents, the ALP and the Liberal Party. There were quite a few lawyers on that committee: a QC and three others who had law degrees, so it was a fairly hard-hitting and powerful committee that looked at this issue.

I do not think I need to press the point much more. Members either agree or disagree with the statement of principles. I think it would be good, when members are sworn in, that they acknowledge what those principles are and commit to them. We require it of public servants, so I do not think it is unreasonable that we follow a similar approach. Apart from anything else, this list of principles provides a guide for members as to what to do and what not to do. It is important that people know what the rules are.

Often, when people come into parliament—sometimes, individual parties will provide a bit of background—they are like a babe in the woods. If they do not have a law degree, for example, then they would not be aware of some of the trip-wires that are out there for people who might want to sue them for defamation or libel, and so on. There should be a proper induction to parliament. I have been here for a long time, and I am not sure what the parliament provides by way of an induction program for new MPs, or what individual parties provide, but there should be a comprehensive induction which includes these principles, or similar principles, so that members know precisely what is acceptable and what is not. They need to know not only the rules of the house but other aspects of the wider law so that they do not get themselves into trouble.

Members will make their own judgement, but I seek an indication that we support this motion. If the government wants to put it in its ICAC bill, or proposal, that is fine. I ask members to support the intent of the motion. If they want to change it then, obviously, they have the prerogative, or the right, to do so.

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