The new independent MP for the seat of North Sydney, Kylea Tink, says she wants to see a code of conduct for parliament that has consequences for MPs, suggesting the new integrity commission could be empowered to sack parliamentarians if necessary.
Arguing a shake-up to the culture of Parliament House was needed to encourage integrity for all those who worked in federal politics, Tink said it “beggars belief” that there was not a professional code of conduct in place for federal parliament, as had been recommended by the landmark Jenkins review.
Tink, who unseated Liberal MP Trent Zimmerman at the 21 May election, said she had been motivated to run for office partly after being “shocked” by the stories of misconduct in Canberra, and had been surprised to learn that employees in the building were not bound by a code of conduct like in other large organisations.
“As I dug into it, I just became more and more bamboozled, more than anything else, as to why basic business principles weren’t just naturally applied across what is fundamentally the highest office in the land,” Tink said.
“Every successful working environment I’ve ever experienced has been driven by an aspirational vision, underpinned by strong shared values and expected, clearly communicated, acceptable behaviour.”
Tink said a general code of conduct was needed that covered everyone who worked in parliament house, from MPs in all parties, to those who worked in the gift shop, that outlined what behaviour was unacceptable.
She also said it could potentially interact with the new federal integrity commission, legislation for which the government has promised to introduce by the end of the year.
“I also come at this with a very strong belief that whatever we do in that area should be created to encourage integrity, not to punish corruption,” she said.
“From my perspective, I think as in any other work environment, there’d be a whole range of things that could potentially be done to sanction someone who breaches a code of conduct, whether that’s standing down, standing aside, right through to effectively – if the breach was severe enough – to actually be sacked,” she said.
“I think that’s something for us to consider.
“Fundamentally, the independence of the integrity commission is going to be absolutely key, and then trusting that the commissioner that’s appointed to that commission, has the capacity and the scope to be able to rule effectively and without bias.
“But the circumstances getting to that point, I would imagine, hopefully, are few and far between.”
Tink said the current system created an environment where “there seems to be no consequence except for once every three years during the voting period,” with MPs effectively employed by their constituents.
While Tink acknowledged there may be resistance to the idea, which would also face constitutional constraints, she believed the current system was an “anomaly”.
“It would just put people on notice that everyday behaviour matters – behaviour in this moment, in this hour, in this day matters.”
Tink said that MPs putting their job on the line was no different to most employees who signed up to a workplace code of conduct and faced consequences for breaches.
“The wider public has become aware that it (a code of conduct) doesn’t exist, and we can see very clearly that Australians don’t think that that’s acceptable, and while there might be a ministerial code of conduct, there needs to be a more fundamental foundational level with consequences.”
The leader of the house, Tony Burke, met crossbench MPs on Thursday to continue discussions about standing orders for the new parliament, which are expected to boost their rights to speak including to ask questions in question time.
Burke said the potential changes have been informed by consultation and by the Jenkins review, which suggested the order of business could be changed to enhance “wellbeing, balance and flexibility”.
Guardian Australia understands this includes consideration of shorter sitting hours or a deadline on divisions, so critical votes are not conducted in the evening.
Independent MP Helen Haines said the standing orders are the “prerogative of the new government” but welcomed the fact the crossbench had been “included in these conversations” due to their increased numbers.
Haines and fellow independent Zoe Daniel both described the talks as productive and constructive. Talks did not canvass the proposed cut to crossbench staffers from eight to five, which the MPs will seek to agitate with the prime minister when he returns from Europe.
The attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, has also begun consultations with the crossbench on the national integrity commission, starting with Haines on Thursday and set to continue next week with a roundtable of integrity experts.
The government is considering introducing the integrity commission bill in the early September sitting, allowing enough time for an inquiry and a final vote in 2022.
Tink said she had been encouraged by her discussions with the new government, saying she believed there was a genuine desire to engage constructively.
“Right from the get go, we have heard from this government that they want to do business differently, and that they want to see a more constructive parliamentary system, and I think that’s absolutely what we’re seeing, and I look forward to continuing to discuss these things,” Tink said.
