John Armstrong: Urgent need for ethics code

The logic for adopting a code of conduct to guide MPs' behaviour outside Parliament is now so compelling that it is incumbent on members to promulgate one without delay.

Some such code of ethics or standards is needed to disinfect Parliament from the stench of the Phillip Field affair.

A code strengthened by disciplinary mechanisms would ensure the next time an MP goes seriously off the rails, he or she will face censure as a minimum, rather than getting off scot-free.

A code is needed to close the gaping hole left by Parliament's rules on contempt which can see a minor misdemeanour referred to the privileges committee, which has extensive powers to censure, fine and even imprison. Yet a far more major offence may avoid scrutiny because it does not meet the necessary criteria for referral.

It seems astonishing that the prior publication of a yet-to-be-released select committee report, for example, can see someone hauled before the privileges committee. Yet, questions about whether an MP used his position for financial benefit somehow fall outside the committee's brief.

While the Field case has highlighted that parliamentary privilege is limited to what happens in the House and does not cover MPs' general conduct outside the chamber and committee rooms, Parliament has long been aware of this shortcoming, but has sat on its hands.

A possible code of conduct was flagged by the government administration select committee in 1997, but the matter was not deemed to be urgent even though two years earlier the British House of Commons had adopted a code in recognition of parliamentary privilege not adequately covering MPs' general conduct.

Parliament was given another reminder in 2003 by the Auditor-General Kevin Brady. He suggested a code might be desirable following his investigation into Donna Awatere Huata's mishandling of government grants. He noted a "lack of clarity" about the standards that should be expected of an MP when personal interests overlapped with those of a constituent or the wider community.

Again, nothing happened.

So it was disingenuous of National to blame the Speaker for rejecting its application for Field to go before the privileges committee.

Margaret Wilson had no option. But she saw what was coming and tried to forestall National's criticism of her by dropping a pretty big hint in her ruling that Parliament now institute a code of conduct.

The introduction of a code would be one positive flowing from the unseemly business revealed by the Ingram report on Field. Yet, neither of the two major parties is rushing to claim the idea as its own.

The Prime Minister says she has an "open mind". That sounds like a "no" or a "no hurry".

It was a different story three years ago. Helen Clark backed the Auditor-General's report on Awatere Huata, saying a code of conduct should be introduced.

With one of her MPs now in the gun, Clark, like any leader, will be more wary of instigating a system that would see her cede control of events to some multiparty committee drawn up to enforce such a code. Labour's enthusiasm for a mandatory code can be judged by its refusal to give leave for the Field case to go to the privileges committee.

Though Don Brash has said he supports a code, National also seems distinctly lukewarm about the idea. National regards talk about a code of conduct as an attempt to distract it from exploiting the contents of the Ingram report.

For Labour, every mention of the code simply breathes fresh life into an embarrassment it wants to bury.

Once the Field affair has run its course - pretty much the case after this week's apology of sorts from the MP - the pressure for a code of ethics, which is not very strong as it is, will further subside.

Inertia will resume. Or so it might seem. The difference this time is Wilson. It can be assumed that behind the scenes the Speaker will not be leaving things to hang in limbo.

She will be endeavouring to get the whole question of a code of ethics thrashed out by Parliament's standing orders committee, which she chairs.

The committee, which determines Parliament's rules, has asked officials for more information on such codes operating in the British and some Australian state parliaments.

The committee also recently heard a submission from Labour's Manukau East MP Ross Robertson, whose advocacy of a code dates back to the 1990s.

Robertson, who is also Assistant Speaker, is motivated by a desire to improve Parliament's standing and lift MPs' credibility above the current basement levels which see the profession rank below psychics and car salesmen when it comes to being trusted.

As a first step, he has suggested any code be voluntary, rather than mandatory, and aimed primarily at lifting standards in the debating chamber.

United Future's Peter Dunne, who went public with his plan this week, wants something broader which makes it clear that MPs advocating on behalf of constituents should neither solicit nor receive payment for any services rendered.

His code would be overseen by a committee comprised of Parliament's most senior MPs, rather than being drawn up on strict party lines as is the case of other committees. The committee's powers would be limited to censure, rather than expulsion or suspension. Such a censure would be seen as having more weight coming from a bipartisan collection of Parliament's most respected and experienced MPs.

Dunne accepts that getting take-up of his proposal will be slow. While MPs are discussing the merits of a code informally, there is no head of steam building either inside or outside Parliament.

Once the fighting over Field is well and truly over, he wants some of the "wise heads" around Parliament to get together and flesh out a firm proposal.

While the matter will still not be accorded a high priority, two factors might help Dunne and Wilson to get Labour and National to think seriously about adopting a code.

First, a code of conduct does seem to be on the standing orders committee's agenda, even if the concept is only at the study stage.

If nothing eventuates, the committee will have to explain why it has not picked up on what effectively amounted to a recommendation from the Speaker in her ruling on the Field case.

Second, lurking in the back of MPs' minds is this thought: what happens the next time an MP's behaviour is found to be so wanting?

Parliament must be ready with the mechanisms to respond because - and this is one thing on which everyone does agree - there will be a next time.