Page name not found

A Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament Staff (MOPS)?

The committee, as part of its investigation of a code of conduct for MOPS Act staff, wrote to a number of commentators on the issues. The Committee gave them a scenario, and asked them to comment on the range of possible ways in which a code might be implemented to deal with the scenario, if such a code were to be incorporated into the MOPS Act

The hypothetical scenario was this:

Ministerial staff are governed by the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act. The act contains a clause which sets out a code of conduct by which MOPS staff must abide.

Allegations are made that a MOPS employee who is not a Chief of Staff has breached an element of the code of conduct, and evidence is available to support the claim.

Once someone has such an allegation to make, and evidence to support it, what should happen then?

The range of options that was mentioned covered four areas:

(a) who investigates breaches of a code;

(b) who imposes penalties or remedies;

(d) whether the investigation is confidential or public

The options identified by the committee were:

1. Who investigates possible breaches?

(a) the ministers Chief of Staff

(b) the minister

(d) the Prime Minister

(e) the Presiding Officer of the House of the relevant minister

(f) the Clerk of the House of the relevant minister

(g) a new statutory office-holder, analogous to the Public Service Commissioner

(h) a Parliamentary Committee of the House of the relevant minister

(i) a joint House Parliamentary Committee

(j) a tribunal of MPs

(k) a tribunal of a government MP, a non-government MP and one independent officer, such as a Clerk of one House, or the Public Service Commissioner

(l) a statutory tribunal (none of the members being an MP)

(m) the House of the relevant minister

2. Who does the investigator report to?

Same list of options as for 1

3. Who imposes penalties or remedies of breaches?

Same list of options as for 1, and would probably be the same thing as for item 2. It is possible, however, that a person or body could receive a report of the results but not be the one imposing a penalty. For example, a Chief of Staff might report their investigation to the minister, but the Prime Minister would impose any penalty; or a commissioner might report results to a minister, but a Parliamentary Committee would impose any penalty after hearing from that minister.

4. Does the investigator make a recommendation regarding remedy or penalty?

(a) Yes

(b) No

5. Is the result of the investigation reported in some way?

(a) No, the matter remains strictly between the staffer, their minister, the complainant, and the investigating body(ies)

(b) Yes, only if the complaint is upheld report made to a Parliamentary Committee

(d) Yes, only if the complaint is upheld report made to the Prime Minister

(d) Yes, always report made to a Parliamentary Committee

(e) Yes, always report made to the House of the relevant minister

(f) Yes, always report made to the Prime Minister

The Committee invited respondents to choose from amongst these approaches or to suggest other possible options. The Committee was interested not only in how the issue should be approached, but also what arguments respondents offered as to why one option should be preferred over another.

Responses

Respondents were invited to write to the Committee, and some made comments during the Committees hearings. The responses received by the Committee have included:

From Professor Geoffrey Lindell, Supplementary submission no. 8A (Word format)
From Dr John Uhr, Submission no. 18 (Word format)
From Mr Harry Evans, Clerk of the Senate, Supplementary submission no. 3A (Word format)

A number of witnesses also commented during hearings on how a code of conduct might be implemented. See in particular the evidence of:

Dr Robyn Seth-Purdie, 3 September 2003 - (PDF format)
Mr Harry Evans, 3 September 2003 - (PDF format)