Training is important. There should be training right up front. There is a meeting once a year that everyone, or a member of their staff, has to attend with the commissioner just to update things, but there should be some up-front training.
Principles are fine, but they're so vague that they don't mean anything. No one is following the principles in the MPs' code because it sets impossible standards. They are to maintain the highest ethical standards that will bear the closest public scrutiny, which may not be fulfilled by complying with the law. That is one of the principles. How do you do that? How could everything anyone does bear the closest public scrutiny and go beyond what laws require? Where is the line?
The problem with principles is that they don't draw lines. The two lines that need to be drawn are the apparent conflict of interest rule, and make it clear what that is, and a foreseeable potential conflict of interest rule. Add that in and delete the general application loophole that allows you to take part in discussions when you have a financial interest even in the outcome of the discussion or decision just because it's a general matter that you're dealing with. You shouldn't be allowed to be taking part in even general discussions and decisions if you have a financial interest in them.
Those two should be made rules. The other principles are fine, but they will never draw lines because the words are so vague and general that they're really meaningless. They add up to meaningless standards.