The Fitzgerald Principles survey

The Australia Institute released a survey which asked parliamentarians a range of questions on acting with integrity, based on principles outlined by the Hon Tony Fitzgerald AC QC, former judge and leader of the Fitzgerald Inquiry, in an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on the 12^th April. The survey asked all MPs and Senator to answer yes or no:

“As a member of Parliament or the Executive Government, are you ethically obliged:

1. To act honourably and fairly and solely in the public interest
2. To treat all citizens equally
3. To tell the truth
4. Not to mislead or deceive
5. Not to withhold or obfuscate information to which voters are entitled
6. Not to spend public money except for public benefit
7. Not to use your position or information gained from your position for your benefit or the benefit of a family member, friend, political party or other related entity?”
   

For more information on the principles, please read Tony Fitzgerald QC’s opinion piece on the ABC and listen to his interview on RN Breakfast. For a broader discussion on the importance of political ethics please listen to the Policy Shop podcast with Tony Fitzgerald QC and University of Melbourne Vice Chancellor Glyn Davis.

Signatories

44 prominent Australians, including David Harper AM QC, Paul Stein AM QC, Margaret McMurdo AC, George Williams AO and Nicholas Cowdery AM QC, have already joined with Tony Fitzgerald in calling on parliamentarians to commit to the Fitzgerald Principles:

To join us in supporting the Fitzgerald Principles, add your name to the above list by emailing hannaha@tai.org.au

RESULTS

At the time of publishing the results, which occurred on the 11th July 2017, 53 parliamentarians had agreed to the Fitzgerald Principles of good governance, 36 declined to participate and the remaining 137 did not reply. At this time, 39 members of the ALP had agreed to the Principles, 7 members of the Australian Greens agreed to the Principles; 4 members of the Nick Xenophon Team agreed to the principles, 1 member of One Nation, as well as 2 Independents.

These results will be updated as and when more responses are received. The full and up to date list of those that have responded is below.

House of Representatives results

Where a respondent said no for one of the questions, they typically explained their reasoning.  The full explanations are detailed below the table.

Partial completions: Ms Susan Lamb

Explanations for answers

Ms Terri Butler

• Q2: Constituents, and people in situations of special disadvantage, receive priority treatment from me.
• Q7: Assuming the reference to “political party” means the private interests of members of that party.

Mr Andrew Giles

• Q1: I’m not sure what this means – as an ethical standard. Of course, I believe I should act in the public interest, and that in doing so I should conduct myself properly.
• Q2: I think the obligation is to have equal regard to the interests of all citizens. To treat all equally would be to entrench inequity.

Mr Ross Hart

• Q5: This involves a value judgment. Private citizen’s rights might be adversely affected. No harm should be done to others.
• Q7: This question is poorly drafted. Of course we will seek to advance our political party. If the question was a bout misuse of position to unfairly benefit etc, the answer would be Yes.

Mr Stephen Jones

• Q2: Not well worded. I’m committed to equality which can’t be achieved by equal treatment.

Senate Results