Transparency

With brouhaha about proposals in Victoria for MPs to disclose the value and size of stakes in companies - rather than merely whether they have a stake - it is interesting to read the recent updated comparison by the national Parliamentary Research Service on legislature Codes Of Conduct (eg registers of interests).

The PRS' A survey of codes of conduct in Australian and selected overseas parliaments covers Australia (national and state/territory), United Kingdom, United States and New Zealand. It notes that -

In 2009, for various reasons, the conduct of ministers and members of parliament has been the subject of much media attention. The Australian and United Kingdom governments have conducted major reviews of entitlements paid to members of parliament. A number of Australian governments introduced codes of conduct for the lobbying industry to deal with the relationship between current and former members of parliament and the lobbying industry. ...

The development of parliamentary codes of conduct has varied in Australian parliaments. In some states, codes have been developed as the result of inquiries, for example in New South Wales (the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Greiner/Metherell affair) and in Queensland (the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, formed as a result of the Fitzgerald inquiry)

Four Australian parliaments (New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory) have separate codes for ministers and members of parliament. All Australian parliaments have adopted registers of pecuniary interests and four (New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Australian Capital Territory) have ethics or standards mechanisms.

Most Australian governments have introduced lobbyist registers and codes of conduct governing the conduct of lobbyists and have codes governing the post-separation employment of ministers.

The Age reports that -

Premier John Brumby yesterday said ''modernising'' laws governing the integrity of Parliament would be part of the Government's election-year agenda.

Under current laws, state MPs are required to list only the companies in which they hold shares but not the number of shares or their value.

The Labor-dominated Law Reform Committee, in a 160-page report tabled yesterday, says the value of MPs holdings could affect the extent to which they were influenced by them and was "likely to affect the community's perception of the member's conduct".

It recommends MPs be instructed to disclose which of their investments are worth up to $50,000, which are worth between $50,000 and $200,000, and which are valued at more than $200,000.

The committee calls for a new code of conduct to state that "MPs must avoid actual and perceived conflicts of interest".

It advocates a comprehensive rewriting of the Register of Interests Act and the introduction of increased penalties for breaches, including dismissal from Parliament in the most serious cases.

The Law Reform Committee's 198 page report regarding its review of the Members of Parliament (Register of Interests) Act 1978 (Vic) is here. The Committee recommends -

renaming the Act as the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act [and] also recommends a more contemporary approach to ethical standards in the Act. The current code focuses largely on preventing members using their public office for private gain. However, the Committee found the community now expects more from its elected representatives than just freedom from conflicts of interest. People value members of parliament who act honestly, with dignity and who are in touch with the community. The Committee has recommended a new statement of values which sets out important democratic values for members of parliament: serving the public interest, upholding democracy, integrity, accountability, respect for the different views and backgrounds of Victorians, diligence and leadership.

The Committee has also recommended a new code of conduct. It proposes modernising the rules on conflicts of interest and adding new rules on upholding democracy and respecting others regardless of background, handling personal information, using public resources appropriately and acting with honesty and respect.

To update the register framework it recommends change that focus on -

• the types of interests in the register — ... changes to clarify the types of interests members have to disclose in the register and to add debts to the list. It recommends members declare interests held by family trusts and companies. It also recommends excluding some interests that are unlikely to conflict with members’ public duties, including small interests

• the extent of information in the register — the Act requires members to provide limited information about their interests compared with some other parliaments. This makes it difficult to tell when a member does or does not have a conflict. The Committee recommends expanding the information required by the Act. However, it recommends members provide less information about residential properties for privacy and security reasons

• how often members update the register — the Act only requires members to update their interests annually. This means the information in the register can be out of date. The Committee recommends members should have to update their interests twice yearly and that the deadline for updates should be reduced from 60 to 28 days

• public access to the information in the register of interests — the Committee recommends the Parliament publish information for members of the public on its website about how to access the register and review arrangements for future public access.