Chance to set new standards

A clear outline of basic values and acceptable standards of behaviour would assist Members to understand their obligations,to deal fairly and show respectfor one another, and to providea public standard againstwhich an individual’s conduct may be measured.– Assistant Speaker of the New Zealand Houseof Representatives,H.V. Ross Robertson,The Parliamentarian, 2007NOW THAT Speaker of the House of Assembly Michael Carrington has formally referred the alleged “incident”between a Cabinet ministerand an Opposition MP to the Committee of Privileges,it may be a good time for all MPs to step back and lookat the standard of behaviour expected in Parliament.It is to be understood that as is his right and duty, the Speaker would have examined the reports made of the dispute and determine whethera prima facie case had been made out before referring the matter to the seven-member Committee which he chairs.At the time of writing (Thursday), it was not clearhow soon the committee could get down to the businessof considering the matter and preparing recommendationsfor its report to the House.That’s mainly becauseof the defection of one member, former Opposition MP Hamilton Lashley, who initially had left the ranks of the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) to sit in the Chamber as an Independent, but subsequently rejoined the ruling Democratic Labour Party (DLP), from which he had resigned in 1999.It means that Leaderof the Opposition Mia Mottley now has to appointa replacement representativeon the Committee.Given the responsibilitiesand duties assigned to the other BLP representatives,her choices may be limitedto Rawle Eastmond, Cynthia Forde or Ronald Toppin.The vacancy was raisedlast Tuesday by the Speaker, who said: “I would expect that the committee should be properly reconstituted by next sitting and the matter is therefore referred subjectto that matter beingdealt with.”Without in any way attempting to prejudge the committee’s work and recommendations, it may be helpful if the MPs could carry into their closed door deliberations some suggestions on how they can set certain standards of behaviourfor their colleagues.While the general public has not been made privy to the composition of the DLP’s campaign promise of integrity legislation requiring, among other provisions, a Codeof Conduct for ministers,it may also be useful if the committee could includea recommendation on a Codeof Conduct for MPs generally.In February last year, the House of Commons in the United Kingdom approveda Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament, the purposeof which, it said, was to assist Members in the dischargeof their obligations to the House, their constituents and the public at large by providing guidance on the standardsof conduct expectedof Members in dischargingtheir parliamentaryand public duties.“The Code appliesto Members in all aspectsof their public life,” the Guide said. “But does not seekto regulate what Membersdo in their purely private and personal lives.“The obligations set out in this Code are complementaryto those which apply to all Members by virtue of the procedural and other rulesof the House and the rulingsof the Chair, and to those which apply to Members falling within the scopeof the Ministerial Code.”The Rules of Conduct stipulate: “Members shallat all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tendto maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidencein the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bringthe House of Commons,or its members generally,into disrepute.”Robertson, in commentingon the Code of Ethics he was proposing for the New Zealand Parliament, said it would remind MPs of their sacred public trust and demonstrateto the public that beinga Member of Parliament“is an honourable vocation pursued by dedicated people,not a dishonourableposition occupiedby the untrustworthy”.That code included a section putting major emphasis on conduct in the House, primarily concernedwith matters of behaviourand appearance.“The behaviour of Members in the Chamber could certainly be improved,” Robertson noted. “Some of these matters may appear to be minor, but theyare important nonethelessto public perceptions.“The Chamber is a very public place and the focal point of public perception of Parliament. It will surely helpif we can achieve improvements in this area.“Over my 20 years in Parliament, I have wincedat the often caustic climatein the Chamber, in the formof time-wasting, name-calling, frivolous points of order, muckraking, ad hominem arguments, and the listgoes on.”Some excerpts fromthe code:(i) Members are to observe any standards of conduct which the House may prescribe. They are to behave at all times in such manner as will enhance the dignity and decorum of the House.(ii) Members shouldnot leave the Chamberwhen the Speaker is addressing the House, and should not normally leave immediately after deliveringa speech.(iii) Members should avoid making allegations in theHouse that are not supportedby evidence.(iv) Members should not sit or stand with their backsto the Chair.(v) Members should not consume refreshments in the Chamber, except where other Members are not affected or proceedings are not disturbed.(vi) Members in the Chamber should not read books, newspapers, or other publications unrelated to their parliamentary duties.(vii) Members should not bring cellular telephones, mobile phones, dictaphonesor pagers into the Chamber,or use cassette or tape recorders either in the Chamber or the galleries.(viii) Members shouldnot display flags, emblemsor any exhibits in theChamber without permission of the Speaker.(ix) Members should not conduct conversations in the Chamber whilst other Members are speaking unless it is necessary to do so, and then only so as not to disturb the proceedings; and(x) Members should not conduct conversations in the lobbies in such a manner asto be heard in the Chamber; [or] shout slogans, engagein ad hominem abuse, interrupt a Member speaking, or otherwise act in a disorderly manner in the Chamber, lobbies, the galleriesor adjoining roomsand corridors.It is still my belief that while some may doubt the efficacy of such codes to help improve MPs’ conduct, we ought to give them a try even if we have to shame parliamentarians into behaving properly.