We as lawyers have a bias in favour of being strict about the ambit of legislative documents--rules-based documents. We don't err on the side of giving them a broad, easy, casual, loosey-goosey interpretation. Lawyers tend to say, “Where is it? If it ain't there, you haven't got it.”
The Ethics Commissioner has to apply rules of conduct, not principles, although there are such things in the code. Principles inform the rules of conduct, but the principles don't stand alone as provisions, the violation of which gives rise to action by the Ethics Commissioner. We have found that the Ethics Commissioner has on occasion failed to make that distinction. Members themselves may seek an inquiry on what they see as an offence under a principle, but it's not necessarily an offence under the rule of conduct.
So we're really saying here that it's better to have a focus on rules of conduct and violations or non-compliance, informed by the principles. The principles do not stand alone as the basis for action by the Ethics Commissioner.