2020 2020 年时 nián shí , , 澳大利亚联邦 ào dà lì yà lián bāng 议员 yì yuán 确实 què shí 没有 méi yǒu 具有 jù yǒu 约束力 yuē shù lì 的 de 行为准则 xíng wéi zhǔn zé , , 而且 ér qiě 在 zài 莫里森 mò lǐ sēn 政府 zhèng fǔ 时期 shí qī , , 由 yóu 联盟党 lián méng dǎng 控制 kòng zhì 的 de 议会 yì huì 抵制 dǐ zhì 实施 shí shī 此类 cǐ lèi 准则 zhǔn zé 。 。
Australia did not have a binding code of conduct for federal MPs in 2020, and the Coalition-controlled parliament resisted implementing one during the Morrison government period.
No specific parliamentary vote where the Coalition and Labor jointly voted against a binding code of conduct was found in official parliamentary records [2].
实际 shí jì 情况 qíng kuàng 是 shì , , 议员 yì yuán 提出 tí chū 的 de 行为准则 xíng wéi zhǔn zé 私人 sī rén 法案 fǎ àn 未能 wèi néng 取得 qǔ dé 进展 jìn zhǎn 。 。
Instead, what occurred was a failure to progress private members' bills proposing codes.
Helen Haines (Independent MP) introduced the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020 in October 2020, which included a strong parliamentary code of conduct, but the bill was removed from the Notice Paper on May 25, 2021, without being debated or voted upon [3].
Similarly, the Australian Greens introduced the Parliamentary Standards Bill with a binding, enforceable code of conduct around 2020-2021, but the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration recommended against the Greens bill [4].
By 2020, the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand all had binding codes of conduct with independent enforcement mechanisms, while Australia had only a non-binding Statement of Ministerial Standards that applied only to ministers and was not independently enforced [5].
缺失背景
该 gāi 说法 shuō fǎ 遗漏 yí lòu 了 le 几个 jǐ gè 关键 guān jiàn 背景 bèi jǐng 要素 yào sù : :
The claim omits several critical contextual elements:
**1.
No bipartisan opposition**: The claim implies Coalition resistance to codes was supported by Labor, but no evidence exists of Labor jointly voting against binding codes [6].
Political obstruction rather than explicit opposition**: The Coalition's resistance appears to have been about controlling parliamentary time and preventing legislation from being voted on, rather than explicitly voting against codes.
When forced to address the issue following the Jenkins inquiry (November 2021), the government did not mount a principled defense of having no codes; instead, the subsequent Labor government simply implemented them [8].
**3.
The Jenkins Report and political pressure**: In November 2021, Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins released "Set the Standard," which found that one in three parliamentary staff experienced sexual harassment and made 28 recommendations for reform, including establishing an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission and implementing a binding code of conduct [9].
Within months of the Labor government taking office in May 2022, codes of conduct were being progressed, suggesting the Coalition's resistance was about political timing and control rather than principled opposition.
**4.
The Morrison government had faced multiple integrity-related controversies (water pipeline funding, Robodebt, grant allocations), which provided the backdrop for advocacy for stronger accountability mechanisms [10].
**The Guardian source** (August 2020) is a reputable mainstream news outlet and is likely reporting accurately on debates occurring at that time regarding codes of conduct and political positions on them [11].
文章 wén zhāng 标题 biāo tí 表明 biǎo míng 其 qí 报道 bào dào 了 le 政客 zhèng kè 对 duì 约束力 yuē shù lì 行为准则 xíng wéi zhǔn zé 的 de 抵制 dǐ zhì , , 这 zhè 与 yǔ 研究 yán jiū 发现 fā xiàn 的 de 实际 shí jì 情况 qíng kuàng 相符 xiāng fú 。 。
The article title suggests it covered politicians' resistance to binding codes, which aligns with what the research found occurred.
**However**, the original source should be evaluated for whether it accurately represents the complexity of the situation.
The headline "Australian politicians don't need a binding code of conduct" suggests politician opinion rather than objective fact, and the full article would need to be examined to determine how carefully it distinguished between opposition to codes and opposition to specific enforcement mechanisms or implementation approaches.
**The criticism is partially justified but incomplete:**
The Coalition-controlled parliament under Scott Morrison did resist binding codes of conduct, and this resistance did occur despite advocacy from multiple sources (Helen Haines, the Greens, civil society organizations).
Opposition**: The Coalition prevented progress on codes through parliamentary procedure (controlling debating time) rather than explicitly voting against them and articulating principled reasons.
No public statements were found explaining why the government opposed binding codes – the resistance appears to have been about political control rather than argued policy position [16].
**2.
Within months of losing power, the Coalition government would not have been in a position to resist these reforms if they had remained in government.
**3.
* * * * 3 3 . . 迅速 xùn sù 逆转 nì zhuǎn 表明 biǎo míng 实用主义 shí yòng zhǔ yì * * * * : : 行为准则 xíng wéi zhǔn zé 在 zài 工党 gōng dǎng 当选 dāng xuǎn 后 hòu 数月 shù yuè 内 nèi ( ( 2023 2023 年 nián 2 2 月 yuè ) ) 即 jí 获得 huò dé 两党 liǎng dǎng 支持 zhī chí 而 ér 得以 dé yǐ 实施 shí shī , , 这 zhè 表明 biǎo míng 两党 liǎng dǎng 最终 zuì zhōng 都 dōu 认为 rèn wéi 行为准则 xíng wéi zhǔn zé 是 shì 政治 zhèng zhì 上 shàng 的 de 必要 bì yào 之 zhī 举 jǔ , , 而 ér 非 fēi 任何一方 rèn hé yī fāng 有 yǒu 原则性 yuán zé xìng 分歧 fēn qí 的 de 意识形态 yì shí xíng tài 问题 wèn tí [ [ 17 17 ] ] 。 。
Rapid reversal suggests pragmatism**: The fact that codes were implemented within months of Labor's election (February 2023) with bipartisan support suggests both parties came to see codes as politically necessary, not as an ideological issue where either party had principled disagreement [17].
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton framed the Jenkins report as revealing "repugnant behaviours" and emphasized agreement "across the political spectrum" [14].
**4.
Implementation challenges**: It's worth noting that implementing binding codes with real enforcement (the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission established October 2024) required more than parliamentary endorsement [18].
The 2009-2010 "Rudd Batts scandal" (poor implementation of home insulation grants), various state-level integrity controversies, and other incidents show that integrity concerns and costly policy failures are not unique to one party [19].
两党 liǎng dǎng 都 dōu 没有 méi yǒu 垄断 lǒng duàn 道德 dào dé 治理 zhì lǐ 。 。
Neither party has a monopoly on ethical governance.
具有误导性
5.0
/ 10
该 gāi 说法 shuō fǎ 的 de 核心 hé xīn 是 shì 正确 zhèng què 的 de — — — — 联盟党 lián méng dǎng 控制 kòng zhì 的 de 议会 yì huì 确实 què shí 在 zài 2020 2020 - - 2021 2021 年 nián 期间 qī jiān 抵制 dǐ zhì 了 le 约束力 yuē shù lì 行为准则 xíng wéi zhǔn zé , , 阻止 zǔ zhǐ 了 le 它们 tā men 的 de 实施 shí shī 。 。
The essence of the claim is correct – the Coalition-controlled parliament did resist binding codes of conduct during 2020-2021, preventing them from being implemented.
However, the claim is misleading in several ways:
1. **Not a "vote against"**: No parliamentary vote where the Coalition formally voted against a binding code of conduct was found in parliamentary records.
The obstruction occurred through controlling debating time and parliamentary procedure [1][2][3].
2. **Not joint opposition**: The claim's framing suggests this was a deliberate policy position taken by both major parties, but no evidence supports Labor and Coalition jointly opposing binding codes [6][12].
When given the opportunity to implement codes (2023), Labor did so with Coalition support [7][13].
3. **Inaction rather than principle**: The resistance appears to have been about political control and timing rather than a principled objection to codes of conduct.
The government did not publicly articulate why it opposed binding codes or what concerns existed [16].
4. **Outdated**: Most significantly, the claim's relevance is diminished by the fact that binding codes now exist (February 2023) and are independently enforced (October 2024) [17][18].
The political resistance ended when political circumstances changed, suggesting it was tactical rather than ideological.
3 3 . . * * * * 不 bù 作为 zuò wéi 而 ér 非 fēi 原则 yuán zé * * * * : : 这种 zhè zhǒng 抵制 dǐ zhì 似乎 sì hū 更 gèng 多 duō 是 shì 政治 zhèng zhì 控制 kòng zhì 和 hé 时机 shí jī 问题 wèn tí , , 而 ér 非 fēi 对 duì 行为准则 xíng wéi zhǔn zé 的 de 原则性 yuán zé xìng 反对 fǎn duì 。 。
The claim accurately captures a real failing of the Morrison government – resistance to integrity reforms during a period of multiple integrity controversies.
However, it oversimplifies a complex political situation and fails to acknowledge that the subsequent Labor government quickly implemented the very reforms that were resisted, with cross-party support.
该 gāi 说法 shuō fǎ 的 de 核心 hé xīn 是 shì 正确 zhèng què 的 de — — — — 联盟党 lián méng dǎng 控制 kòng zhì 的 de 议会 yì huì 确实 què shí 在 zài 2020 2020 - - 2021 2021 年 nián 期间 qī jiān 抵制 dǐ zhì 了 le 约束力 yuē shù lì 行为准则 xíng wéi zhǔn zé , , 阻止 zǔ zhǐ 了 le 它们 tā men 的 de 实施 shí shī 。 。
The essence of the claim is correct – the Coalition-controlled parliament did resist binding codes of conduct during 2020-2021, preventing them from being implemented.
However, the claim is misleading in several ways:
1. **Not a "vote against"**: No parliamentary vote where the Coalition formally voted against a binding code of conduct was found in parliamentary records.
The obstruction occurred through controlling debating time and parliamentary procedure [1][2][3].
2. **Not joint opposition**: The claim's framing suggests this was a deliberate policy position taken by both major parties, but no evidence supports Labor and Coalition jointly opposing binding codes [6][12].
When given the opportunity to implement codes (2023), Labor did so with Coalition support [7][13].
3. **Inaction rather than principle**: The resistance appears to have been about political control and timing rather than a principled objection to codes of conduct.
The government did not publicly articulate why it opposed binding codes or what concerns existed [16].
4. **Outdated**: Most significantly, the claim's relevance is diminished by the fact that binding codes now exist (February 2023) and are independently enforced (October 2024) [17][18].
The political resistance ended when political circumstances changed, suggesting it was tactical rather than ideological.
3 3 . . * * * * 不 bù 作为 zuò wéi 而 ér 非 fēi 原则 yuán zé * * * * : : 这种 zhè zhǒng 抵制 dǐ zhì 似乎 sì hū 更 gèng 多 duō 是 shì 政治 zhèng zhì 控制 kòng zhì 和 hé 时机 shí jī 问题 wèn tí , , 而 ér 非 fēi 对 duì 行为准则 xíng wéi zhǔn zé 的 de 原则性 yuán zé xìng 反对 fǎn duì 。 。
The claim accurately captures a real failing of the Morrison government – resistance to integrity reforms during a period of multiple integrity controversies.
However, it oversimplifies a complex political situation and fails to acknowledge that the subsequent Labor government quickly implemented the very reforms that were resisted, with cross-party support.