Thread: Code of Conduct for MPs. Why not?

References to Bill Shorten's alleged dalliance raise questions about the prospect of a code of conduct.

Is the behaviour of a politician in the bedroom or even in his mistress's bedroom to be scrutinised to see if it breaches the code of conduct? How does it affect his performance in parliament?

As there is even some doubt about the veracity of the rumour, it also raises the question of what is the most unparliamentary behaviour; impregnating your PA or using a rumour about someone's personal life (which may turn out to be unfounded) to destroy someone's political career.

It could be argued that spreading rumours for political gain is more the sort of behaviour that parliament should be concerned with rather than marital infidelity.

I would have expected that if any of the tabloid journalists thought that the story had legs that it would have featured more prominently in the gutter press by now. Maybe they don't think it is true.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

We already have a code of conduct, called the law. Neither Slipper nor Thompson have been convicted of anything. If they are, and the penalty is more than a year in prison, they will be thrown out of parliament.

A code of conduct has great potential to be abused to silence your political opponents by accusing them of some crime, which doesn't have to be actually proven to falsely discredit someone. An example was the trumped up sodomy charges in Malaysia, used to silence the opposition leader.

Be very wary about being seduced in the currrent 'trial by media'. Its a very dangerous and slippery downhill slope towards silencing public opinion.

So what you're saying is that so long as our members of Parliament are not convicted criminals, is O.K. for them to have low morals and indulge in the lowest of acts so long as a criminal conviction does not occur when they are in office.

I would have thought we should have a right to expect a much higher standard of those who would dictate to us.

In the game of politics, all parties run the risk of tit-for-tat, if one side makes unfounded allegations against the other there is just as much chance of the reverse being true.

A code of conduct, can quite easily say its O.K to commit adultry but don't use tax payer funds to do it. If you do expect to be stood down while it's investigated, to your party's detriment.

Perhaps it will cause al parties to scrutinise the background and morality of those they pre-select and offer to the electorate.

Addit: On Craig Thomson AEC today reported http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...516-1yqbs.html

" The analysis notes that the combined $196, 000 worth of salaries of Crisalee Stevens and Matthew Burke - who were employed at the HSU to help directly with Mr Thomson's bid for Parliament - had been properly disclosed in HSU third party expenditure returns for 2006/07 and 2007/08.

This afternoon Mr Thomson tweeted a short response to the electoral commission findings.

"AEC report clearly shows FWA got it wrong on electoral expenses. Wonder how widely that gets reported!"

Even in spite of the disclosures, I wonder if the members of the HSU knew they were funding the political aspirations of their National President to the tune of $196,000? None of the 5 HSU members in this office, knew that was where their HSU union dues were being spent.

As a member I wouldn't be happy but if it was properly disclosed then the whole executive is to blame not just Thompson.

They area employed by the people so should have a code of conduct. Simple in my eyes. If my minister can get away with it then so can I when employed in his department. That should scare them.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

As a member I wouldn't be happy but if it was properly disclosed then the whole executive is to blame not just Thompson.

Probably a thread drift, but you're spot on DM. Surely the process that was (or wasn't) in place must be a concern.
How is it that someone could, allegedly, clock up such expenses without a system of audit and review?
If I spend over $100 on the work account I must have receipts and any expenses must be justifiable. All expenses are reviewed monthly by accountants with sharp pencils (and no sense of humour)

Nonetheless, IMHO, these (and any) alleged criminals must be first found guilty before we determine any penalty.

Absolutely they should be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us.

Think about it people ... They are our leaders and what is that old line?

"Lead by example"

If they don't clean up it will enable us to move further from our "fair dinkum" roots. And IMHO on average we are already too far off that mark.