I recently read with interest an article which reported on a NSW survey about people’s perception of the legal profession. The article header told us that solicitors are considered “pillars of society” by those surveyed. Also of interest was a finding that solicitors rated higher in the opinion of those surveyed than members of parliament.

Some might say we should draw little comfort from that finding. On the other hand it is perhaps unsurprising. Whereas a legal practitioner may have their right to practice revoked or suspended due to alleged or proven criminality, to the surprise and dismay of most people the same does not always follow for elected parliamentarians.

The list of “crooks” and alleged “crooks” in parliament seem to be growing commensurate with the increasingly unimpressive list of members who make it into the house. The explanation would seem to be two-fold. Firstly major political parties are failing to do their due diligence on prospective members. There are members preselected who wouldn’t cut it in a board room, and who certainly would not make it into the legal profession given our strict regulation of who is entitled to practice. Second, our at times curious electoral laws have allowed a veritable flood of disparate and often untalented yokels into parliaments, particularly to upper houses.

How did Pauline Hanson ever cross the threshold of our federal parliament? The truest publication I ever acquired was entitled The Wit and Wisdom of Pauline Hanson and was entirely blank. Her jingoistic invective persists to the current day, even though her parliamentary days have mercifully expired. That said Ms Hanson was guilty of nothing other than her redneck views. The same cannot be said for others affiliated with the major parties.

So let’s examine the last few years of Australian parliamentary history.

First we were treated to a blow by blow rendition of the immoral and alleged criminal activities of the (now) former federal MP Craig Thomson. His asserted criminality aside, how could the man have had the audacity to remain in parliament purportedly representing his electorate given his now admitted conduct? No chief executive, board member or right minded person of authority would have done anything but resign immediately. Yet here he was in the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia farcically clinging to his seat in a representative democracy without the rules providing anything for his suspension or removal. It was an all-time low for the Australian parliament. What have our standards become that we should tolerate this?

Lately we have had the spectacle of Billy Gordon, whose criminal past apparently went unnoticed in the pre-selection process by Queensland Labor. Owing to either his lack of candour or the party’s abject failure to screen his candidature, or both, that state now has a convicted breaker and enterer as a member. The best Mr Gordon can offer is that because his offending was as a juvenile we ought not to know about it. The most Queensland Labor can do is expel him from the party. He beat them to it and resigned. Notwithstanding his disgrace, we are now told that having let an offender be elected to the house, and following his refusal to resign, they can’t chuck him out. Unbelievable. Worse, while all this was occurring we learned that he is presently being investigated in relation to allegations of domestic violence. Still there is nothing that can be done, and the people of Queensland are faced with a term of having an offender as a law-maker.

And then we have our own Bernard Finnigan. Four years ago he was charged with child pornography offences. I should not pass comment because he is finally being tried as I write this column. I will however ask this question: are we comfortable that he sat in our upper house for these past four years participating in our democratic governance while he stood charged with these alleged offences, whether or not they are proved?

In the legal profession the conduct commissioner may apply to the court to suspend a legal practitioner’s right to practice even when an allegation is first made and not yet proved. This provision is there for the protection of the community. Should the same apply to parliamentarians when they are accused of serious criminality? Of course, in the case of Mr Finnigan, like any accused he is innocent until proven guilty.

And therein lies the dilemma. Craig Thomson was found, on appeal, to be less culpable than following his trial at first instance. The judicial process is integral to our democracy and nothing I say here should be construed as abrogating the right to put the prosecution to proof. Allegations can also be easily made, but have we taken the sanctity of parliament too far? To express it differently, have the conventions of the past requiring a parliamentary member to resign been jettisoned in a new age of political expediency? One wonders if in the current day our pursuit of power has become a pursuit of power at all costs. Democracy was never intended thus.

The reputation of parliamentarians is probably as low as it has ever been. Parliamentarians have themselves to blame. In the absence of amendments to our Electoral Acts to require suspension or dismissal from parliament in certain circumstances, parliamentarians need to do the right thing. Having committed past serious crimes, or being accused of them, ought to lead to a member assessing their fitness for parliament.

Let’s take a leaf out of the Barry O’Farrell book: when your number’s up have the good sense to recognise it. The people of Australia will at least admire you for a last act of decency and for clearing the deck for another more deserving member.

To take a seat in our Houses of Parliament is the greatest of democratic privileges: if the parliamentarians of Australia wish to win back our earlier admiration they should start acting like it is.

The same rules that apply to the rest of society ought to apply to the parliament.

Morry Bailes is managing partner at Tindall Gask Bentley Lawyers, Member of the Executive of the Law Council of Australia and immediate past President of the Law Society of SA. The opinions expressed in this column are his own.

His column appears every second Thursday.

Disclosure: Morry Bailes is a member of the Liberal Party.