The first requirement is to remember the critical role of the legislature in the integrity system. The essential insight of ?ethics regimes? and ?integrity systems? is that no single institution can provide the answer and that each must support the other. We would argue that a democratic legislature can and should provide the lynchpin of the integrity system.

First, government officials only have power to act according to the law and Parliament can and should carefully consider what powers they give to public officials.

Secondly, members and committees asking questions of government can provide a focal point for the reporting of questionable practices. This strengthen independent bodies by giving them someone to report to, follow up reports, and provide public protection to those who are making valid criticisms of governments. If a parliamentary body can demand documents, testimony, and information from government, then it strengthens Freedom of Information legislation by making the withholding of documents pointless (conversely, if the legislature cannot demand such documents then resisting FOI requests is a more viable tactic).

However, if committees of the legislature are to perform their functions they cannot be government controlled. The most likely way to ensure this is to select them from a house that is elected on a different basis to the government. In presidential systems this will frequently be the case, in bicameral systems it is often the case.

Reformers should seek to ensure that the electoral system permits the chamber or chambers providing the committees to be elected on a different basis. This allows them to operate as a house of review rather than a rubber stamp (where controlled by the government) or a house of obstruction (where controlled by the opposition). Where there is no such house which can operate in this way, the possibility of appointing independent chairs, agreed to by both government and opposition, and would provide an interesting and viable alternative.

If the legislature is to perform this critical oversight function, legislators have to see themselves as public officials performing a critical public service rather than mere ciphers for the party machines. We are not suggesting an elimination of the party system and a ?return? to legislators acting on their individual consciences. This should involve the justification of the party system for what it can offer the public and a justification of the office of legislator that reflects the vital role they play in the democratic governance of the nation.

Political parties should see themselves as putting alternative views of the way that public power can be exercised for the benefit of the citizens.

Most politicians enter politics with a belief that different public policies can make a difference and that they and their party's set of policies will, on balance, improve the life of citizens. The problem is that, in the search for power, this is often forgotten and policies are put forward on the basis that they will get the politician re-elected rather than that they will benefit citizens.

Where special interests provide election funding, the policies may be very much to the detriment of the citizens. Furthermore, there is a tendency to use questionable tactics ? including the use of government advertising and the manipulation of information reaching the public ? to secure re-election.

Here, we come to a permanent tension within democracy that no integrity system can eliminate but merely limit. The core idea of democracy is that the people delegate executive and/or legislative power to politicians whom the electors believe will best use that power to serve electors? interests.

It is in the interests of governments to use that power in ways that will earn approval and convince a majority that it is the better choice. However, there is always a temptation to use governmental power to secure re-election by avoiding or distorting that choice. The crudest form of avoiding that choice involves a cancellation or postponement of elections. However, there are many other means of avoiding that choice ? distorting electorates and electoral boundaries, manipulating electoral practices and electoral machinery, and using governmental power to silence opposition or promote government policies. The temptation is so great that it might seem that only strong laws will suffice. Certainly, there is a need for clear constitutional provisions, electoral laws with teeth, and independent electoral commissions with clear procedures for calling elections and counting the votes.

There is a need for clear legal rules on electoral advertising, election funding, and government advertising. However, wherever there is power, there is a temptation for abuse. It is important that the fundamental democratic principles underlying those laws be clearly and publicly articulated and attempts made to live by them. Politicians in a democracy are members of a very important public profession. Politicians seek to articulate policy choices and put them before the people. If they believe that their policies and the general philosophy underlying them are correct, they should be proud to promote those policies and should believe that those public values and public policies deserve to be chosen on their merits by their fellow citizens. To seek to win by other means discredits those values and policies and dishonors their profession. Most politicians would hold to some such set of beliefs and would only justify deviations as defenses (or pre-emptive strikes) against even worse deviations by their political adversaries.

This is where the integrity system is challenged and where it must be strongest ? in its laws and institutions (including ethics advisors, ethics committees, a free press, FOI etc.) and with, as always, ethical standard setting leading the way by providing a source of legal principle and a standard for judging institutional reforms.

Such value based co-ordinate means are the key to going ?beyond best practice? in governance reform.