Standards of Conduct not Laws relevant in the case of Barnaby Joyce
Our federal politicians appear not to comprehend the crucial distinction between codes of conduct such as the Statment of Ministerial Standards and laws proscribing behaviour.
The Statement of Ministerial Standards sets out general principles governing such standards and stipulates inclusively specific minimum standards of behaviour expected of ministers. Criminal laws on the other hand, spell out elements of behaviour which need to be established in order for a Minister to be found guilty.
Whether a person employed by a minister is a ‘partner’ in law as well as in fact, should have no bearing on whether a minister is in breach of the ministerial Standards. If, on the other hand, the question is whether a minister is in breach of a criminal law prohibiting such a hiring, lawyers will rightly argue over whether a lover is a partner while a spouse is still in the picture.This is because, we value the presumption that a person is not guilty until it is established otherwise, and because guilt depends on proof, beyond reasonable ground, of all elements of the crime.
The spirit of the law (contextual common sense) would see it as being clear cut that a code of conduct stipulating that a minister should not employ a family member or partner also intends to cover lovers, girlfriends, boyfriends etc as they fall within the rationale for such a prohibition, and because a code of conduct only spells out a minimum standard of conduct and expects much more.
The ministerial code of conduct does not need to be refined to deal with the Barnaby Joyce affair, as federal parliament should expect ministers to display the honesty, integrity and ethics to avoid actual or perceived abuse of power or discretion. This should be the case even without a code of conduct.
Consequently it could be argued that Barnaby’s actions should be assessed against the guiding principles of the ministerial standards rather than legalistic hair-splitting which courses on the meaning of specific words rather than the reasons for their inclusion.