Page 2479 - Week 07 - Monday, 15 August 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This is quite a clear breach of all notions of ministerial responsibility and of cabinet solidarity-a fundamental Westminster principle that when the cabinet acts, when the executive acts, it is clearly understood that it is acting as a unit. It is only in that way that a cabinet or an executive can be held accountable to the Assembly, to the legislature, and through the legislature to the people, for its actions.
That is the fundamental principle of notions of cabinet solidarity and ministerial responsibility. It is perhaps the only device by which an executive can be held responsible to a legislature. What measure of accountability can there be of an executive-that is, the government, the cabinet-if on particular issues the member is simply hived off and says, “Look, I’ll accept responsibility for this decision, but I won’t accept responsibility for that decision.”
It actually dilutes and diffuses the possibility of an executive being held appropriately accountable if the members of the executive, the members of the cabinet, can simply pick and choose which particular items of government decision-making they are prepared to be responsible or accountable to the legislature of the people for, and then decide, “Well, you know, I didn’t really like this very much; I’ll adopt a public position …
This is exactly what is happening, isn’t it, members? This is exactly what is happening! Mr Stanhope said:
… and then decide, “Well, you know, I didn’t really like this very much; I’ll adopt a public position. I’ll appeal to my particular constituency in the electorate on this particular issue by saying ‘Well, I’m a member of the cabinet, I’m a member of the executive, but I don’t like this particular policy initiative, so I’ll stand down from it’.”
This is what is happening here.
Back when the Labor Party used to believe in the principles of Westminster government, when they actually stood for something, that is the position that they took. That situation is exactly what is happening here.
So it was okay for the Labor Party in opposition, back in 2001, to adopt that position. But Mr Barr now, and Mr Rattenbury now, do not think that is valid. Why is that? Why is that? I think if you looked back to 2001 and saw who voted for that particular item on the notice paper, you will see that all the members of the Labor Party would have supported that! Now, they are more interested in voting to support their shored-up relationship with the Greens; even if it breaches their own ACT handbook on cabinet conventions, and even if it breaches every Westminster convention that this parliament should be acting in accordance with!
If you go to the Australian House of Representatives practice, “Aspects of ministerial responsibility”, it talks about collective cabinet responsibility, and it says:
… both are central to the working of responsible government.
Responsible government! So what happens if you breach it? Are you no longer
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video