HOME   >   OUR MPS   >   ROSS ROBERTSON   >   SPEECHES

Greetings, Acknowledgements.

Thank you for inviting me to speak at this Seminar. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here, to learn from you, and to share with you some of my thoughts on democracy, leadership, and the values communities have a right to expect of those they elect as their representatives.

I recently delivered an address to the annual meeting of a New Zealand institution, and the following words from the group’s charter struck me as especially significant, declaring an aim to which all leaders would do well to aspire.

“Their conduct should be guided by wisdom and prudence, and marked by sobriety, and honesty. The Glory of God, the welfare of mankind, the honour of their Sovereign and the good of their country, should be the only motives of their actions”.

The sitting of Parliament each day begins with a prayer. Our prayer is an inclusive common commitment to our identity as a parliamentary democracy; it acknowledges our spiritual dimension and our accountability, not just to the ballot box and the judgement of history but also to our conscience and character. Before all we need to be mindful of a life-long call for humility. The prayer begins with humble acknowledgement for guidance and the laying aside of all private and personal interests. Parliament’s prayer helps us to understand that we are whole beings concerned with both the letter and the spirit of the law. We can be ever hopeful that we will conduct the affairs of the House in an honourable and just way, and trust that our House can revere the sacredness of our temples, churches, meeting halls, markets and marae, for we – as our prayer declares - are daily dealing with the public peace, welfare and tranquillity of New Zealand.

In February last year The Economist proclaimed: “Most laws are forged of compromise, bribery and arm-twisting. This is why Bismarck likened them to sausages: it is better not to see them being made”. There is no doubt that there is a universal crisis in the public’s perception of and participation in democratic institutions. I draw upon 17 years as an elected representative, 10 years working with the international Parliamentarians for Global Action group, my perspective as Assistant Speaker, and my promotion of a Code of Conduct for our own parliamentarians, to propose that Bismarck was wrong. On the contrary, I believe it is vital that the community sees the laws being made: it must be involved in discussion and delivery of the values which add value.

It is important for us to ask some hard questions of ourselves, and to extend our understanding of human nature. Is our conception of human nature more Machiavelli or Mahatma Gandhi? Do we subscribe to the misreading of Adam Smith in planning our economies – i.e. ‘selfishness and scarcity’ or more realistically upon ‘community and abundance’? What is our philosophy of leadership? What are we doing to communicate our vision and values with our electorates? What is our relationship with the media? We must overcome the democratic deficit, for today we face the prospect that democracies will fall apart because we do not sustain a truthful relationship with our electors and our ecosystems.

There is an urgent need to re-establish trust between the leaders and the led in democracies throughout our world. Distrust of and despair in democracy are widespread and addictive, and lead to vicious circles of cynicism seen as a universal picture of low voter turnout, low participation in political processes and low approval ratings for politicians. Research has pointed to a chronic decline of confidence in politicians, with studies showing ‘Confidence’ was 33% in 1975 and only 4% in 1992. A 2001 survey confirmed the trend, with over one-third of respondents saying that they didn’t trust politicians at all and 93% giving politicians a very low score. Membership of political parties has plummeted: for example in New Zealand 25% of the electoral roll were members in the 1950s; by the 1990s this was 2.5%. Likewise, voter turnout has dwindled from 86% in 1984 to 76% in 1990, and at the 2002 general election, if non-registered voters are included, only 73% of the population of voting age took part. Those election results showed that “Did not vote” finished second to the government!

From my experience working as a Board member of Parliamentarians for Global Action, I can confirm that this trend is by no means confined to New Zealand. This is reinforced by the “voice of the people” survey of 36,000 people in 47 countries which revealed that national legislative bodies enjoyed the lowest levels of trust of all public institutions, with 51% of respondents stating they had “little/no trust” in them. The findings were particularly alarming in the Middle East (Turkey and Israel), followed closely by countries in Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia and Panama), where 82% and 73% respectively felt that parliaments did not operate in society’s best interest. Furthermore, two thirds of those surveyed worldwide felt that their country was not “governed by the will of the people”.

This is part of a universal picture of dissatisfaction directed at democratic representatives. Both Kennedy Cabinet Member Harlan Cleveland in his recent book (2002) and Vladimir Putin’s senior advisor Sergei Karaganov (2000) challenge us with the sense that we live in a ‘no one is in control’ world. In a small economy (GDP = $US100B) like New Zealand we are sensitive to international influences like the 28% depreciation of the US dollar against our unit over a year. Substantial global issues over which local legislatures seem powerless to control are adding to the sense of aversion towards representatives.

There have been many attempts to improve the situation: Vicente Fox when Governor of Guadalajara in 1996 sneered ‘governments of the globe either are not or should not be trusted.’ He set out to do a better job handpicking a coalition of talents to recoup credibility only to be denounced. An Economist article in December 2003 judges that at the midterm point ‘he has little to show for his presidency’.

The charismatic internationalist Andreas Pastrana campaigned for the Presidency of Colombia by decrying ‘politicians live in a world of lies.’ We must keep to the path with “first rate knowledge and moral integrity”. Echoing Mr Fox, he said, “we must select the best people”. There are seven rungs of morality to climb to “promote mutual respect, understanding, courage and love”. He lasted a term before placing himself in self-imposed exile in Spain.

South Africa: The first Parliamentary Bulletin of the ruling ANC announced the promulgation of a Code of Conduct as a way of sustaining the great release from Apartheid. It sought to improve the attitudes to and behaviour of parliamentarians. The great faith seems to have fizzled. Today only half of their 7 million eligible voters have enrolled for the imminent election.

Australia: Dr Andrew Brien’s recommendation for A Code of Conduct in 1998 noted that: Trust is at an all time low, Politicians Fall To Low Levels Of Honesty and Ethics - Only Car Salesmen Rate Lower. ‘Car salesmen’ was the epithet levelled by Dr Hans Blix against Messrs Bush and Blair over Iraq.

Other observers (e.g. business leader and long time civil servant John Menadue, Australia) decry the trivialisation of politics; the dumbing down of political discourse in the UK, the USA and Australia. The national referendum on whether Australia should become a republic was likely lost because the head of state would be selected by politicians – adding another level of possible snout in the trough corruption. Membership of the Australian Labour Party has dropped from 300,000 in 1945 to 19,000 today.

I believe that politicians themselves, in democracies across the world, need to accept some responsibility for the current perceptions. Even if such perceptions arise from misunderstandings, they still matter. Members of Parliament, as the key participants in the process, need to do more to explain why their Parliament works the way it does. Parliament is the shop window onto the political process, and we must collectively strive to improve popular perception of its relevance. It is time for Parliament itself to take steps to improve the situation and reverse the loss of confidence and trust. Introduction of standards and values which Parliament applies to itself and expects its Members to uphold is a necessary first step.

With this in mind, in 2001 I proposed a Code of Conduct for New Zealand parliamentarians. Most of our government departments and even some local body councils have Codes of Conduct in place, and it seems appropriate that so too should Parliament itself. Codes of one sort of another have been adopted by some other Parliaments around the world, but given that there is no evidence in New Zealand of the sort of corruption scandals that are endemic in some other countries, the Code I propose is deliberately modest. It begins with a brief set of general public duties incumbent on Members, outlines a set of general principles for Members to observe in their conduct, and ends with a section emphasising conduct in the House, particularly regarding behaviour and appearances. Some of these may appear to be minor matters but they are important nonetheless to public perceptions. The Chamber is a very public place and the focal point of public perception of Parliament. It will surely help if we can achieve improvements in this area.

The aim of the Code is aspirational and supportive of MPs, the high percentage of whom endeavour to perform their tasks faithfully and ethically. While the cut and thrust of passionate and intelligent debate should be the hall mark of a vibrant and effective parliament, it is the failure of some MPs to take parliament seriously that can contribute to the perception of failing leadership. Of course, it is quite possible that the public’s perception is filtered by a media hungry for conflict and controversy, and in a thriving democracy freedom of the press is something we must not only tolerate, but treasure. We must, however, strive to ensure that any media agent looking for cash in trash and ratings in rubbish is given little ammunition in Parliament.

The proposed Code of Conduct seeks to improve the perceived quality of the service rendered by elected representatives. As the popular perception improves, so too will the quality of candidates who present themselves for election. The Code is declaratory rather than mandatory, and is a document simple enough to provide guidance but one that does not attempt to cover all contingencies. The principles it proclaims are also simple, but are the basis of the true character we seek in our politicians: selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty; and leadership.

Legislative ethics need a process that explicitly explores these fundamentals. The pragmatic outcome is to ensure that codes become living, revisable documents, integrated into an educational programme which raises ethical consciousness not only of MPs but of the community as well. In so doing, we hope to highlight the relevance of parliament, to change the perception of the service rendered by elected representatives, and to improve the popular perception of Parliament as “the People’s House”. New Zealand has pioneered many reforms that have received global acclaim, and we can achieve the same with a broad-based aim and resolve to advance the standing of politics as a worthy profession.

The Standing Orders Select Committee has considered the proposal, and late last year I welcomed their report which basically endorsed the principles of the proposal to establish a Code of Conduct. The Committee has suggested that these principles could be considered during the examination of the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill when it is brought before the House, and I am hopeful at that stage that the Code may become a reality for the New Zealand Parliament.

At the turn of the century (1902) the great Liberal party legislator William Pember Reeves described Australasian states as a “place for radical experiments for the edification of the rest of the world”. And indeed, New Zealand has certainly been at the forefront of many experiments in parliamentary democracy: a founding document that sets out the rights and responsibilities of the colonising and the indigenous communities; a system of national parks; the welfare state; enfranchising women; labour reform; the founding of the United Nations; we are pioneering social performance indicators to audit the effectiveness of policy; and the rapid liberalisation of economic fundamentals for a highly protected regime in 1984, to one of the most liberal and open economies by 1987. The widespread and authoritative calls for substantial improvement in leadership theory and practice now give us the opportunity to lead again, beginning here in New Zealand, in an effort to solve the complex problem of re-establishing trust between the people and their leaders in democracies throughout the world. A Code of Conduct for Parliament is a step in the right direction.

People demand strong leadership. Elections are won and lost on the perceived leadership qualities of those who stand for election. I believe that one of the most important factors for those voting in the next New Zealand election will be that of leadership, and on that score I have no problems.

Values and ethics are not a, but the most fundamental things facing the survival of democracy in this century. As recently retired Vice-Chancellor of Auckland University of Technology, John Hinchcliff, wrote in the NZ Herald in October last year: “We need a vision based on a coherent set of values to decide how we should select from the available realms of information and knowledge as we shape our actions. It could be that our progress and perhaps survival depends on our ability to determine appropriate values.”

A Code of Conduct for Parliamentarians is important, but more important than the piece of paper is how and why it came to be written, and that initiative and inspiration I drew from the Prime Minister’s Speech from the Throne in 1999: “My government recognises that there is deep public concern with a number of aspects of the operations of our political system in recent years… (we will) restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process.”

Can we restore our relationship between MPs and their community? I am realistic - I expect a miracle!

 

• OUR MPs | 
• FEATURES | 
• LATEST NEWS | 
• SPEECHES | 
• PORTFOLIOS | 
• POLICY | 
• MULTIMEDIA | 
• SEARCH | 
• CONTACT US