Page 2109 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The convention of the collective responsibility of Ministers for Government decision is central to the Cabinet system of government.
The foundation for this convention lies in the United Kingdom. In 1841, when Lord Melbourne was dealing with the issue of corn laws, he said:
Bye the bye, there is one thing we haven’t agreed upon, which is, what we are to say? Is it better to make our corn dearer, or cheaper, or to make the price steady? I don’t care which: but we had better all tell the same story.
That message was as applicable in 1841 as it is today in 2006. In this situation where the government has chosen to make life for people in the ACT considerably more difficult, the Deputy Chief Minister and Attorney-General have broken ranks and told a different story. They have publicly opposed the government’s stated position specifically in relation to school closures and they have failed to support both the cabinet and their colleague Mr Barr in his endeavours to advocate cabinet policy.
They also failed to oppose their party’s decision to embrace a policy to oppose reductions to public service superannuation contributions. They were remarkable in their silence. I spoke with those in attendance at that event and confirmed that not a squeak was heard from those two ministers, despite their obligation to support and advocate cabinet policy and not publicly oppose it. Their public opposition to the government’s position was widely reported after the Labor Party annual conference.
According to the ACT code of conduct for ministers, because of that opposition they should resign from cabinet. Research has shown that the position taken by those two ministers is in stark contrast to the declared position of their Chief Minister. It is significant that when two of the most senior ministers in the ACT government are under fire in this place the ACT Chief Minister is nowhere to be seen.
Mrs Dunne: He walked out the door so fast.
MR MULCAHY: He walked out the chamber when the motion was first moved, which tells us volumes. I imagine he is sitting in his office saying, “Good riddance to these people. They have embarrassed my government and they have breached the code of conduct.” The Chief Minister does not want to be in the chamber to defend them. It is worth reminding members that Mr Stanhope said:
The notion and principle of cabinet solidarity is extremely important. The amendment I proposed on another occasion was designed to deal with a specific circumstance—namely, where a minister was not prepared to accord with accepted notions of cabinet solidarity, and openly and blatantly abandoned Westminster principles. That will not happen under this government.
We are talking essentially about the importance of the principle of cabinet solidarity as one of the overarching principles of Westminster-style government, which we, in this place, accept and pursue.
Those are not my words or the words of any opposition speaker; those are the words of Mr Stanhope. Later, in combating and opposing Mr Stefaniak, he said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .