Varieties of ethics regulations in Westminster-style systems

Political ethics regulations are a growing phenomenon, despite relevant varieties in frameworks and robustness. Besides the frequency of scandals related to abuse of power and misdemeanours in office and the decrease in the levels of trust in political institutions and actors, the increase in ethics norms and bureaucracies is also explained by policy diffusion. International fora, such as the OECD and the Group of States against Corruption have been great promotors of integrity regulatory systems, yet one fits all solutions are not always appropriate and governments tend to benchmark best practices in other countries and systems. Hence, this article looks at political ethics regulatory systems in four Westminster countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Frequently compared, these countries share principles and practices of in government style, namely the fusion of the executive and parliament, strong cabinet government, ministerial responsibility and a non-partisan and professional bureaucracy. In the article, we explore and explain the differences and similarities of the ethics regulations in these four Westminster countries, offering an in-depth analysis of each case.