Page 2110 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have to disagree with you, Mr Stefaniak, on the suggestion that members of cabinet who feel uncomfortable about being the signatory to legislation that reflects a government or cabinet position have to simply accept and swallow that discomfort on the basis of the principle they sign up to the decision ... It is one of the burdens you bear as a cabinet minister—as a member of a cabinet. It is a long-held principle that, as a member of cabinet, you sign up to what the cabinet decides. But you do not go out and say, “My mates in cabinet have done this but I disagree.”
You cannot sign up to regulations as an executive, as a government, then say, “Look, this is a mongrel regulation. All my mates in cabinet have signed up to it but I am not going to”—and then walk out onto the street and beat your breast and say, “I am a defender of a principle.”
That is what has just happened. Mr Corbell and Ms Gallagher went to the Labor Party conference and kowtowed to factional bosses who said, “You will lose your preselection Mr Corbell and Ms Gallagher. Your $200,000 ministerial jobs will be out the door because you do not toe the faction line.” So they said, “Yes, sir, we will do as you say. Blow the Westminster principle and blow adhering to cabinet decisions that have been imposed on the people of Canberra.” If they are going to defy cabinet policy why do they not look at some of the government’s other policies? Rates and taxes are crippling household budgets in this town. They suddenly abandon the very people they purport to represent because they are irrelevant to their factional masters.
As Mr Stefaniak pointed out earlier, throughout the history books there are many examples of people who have acted sensibly under similar circumstances. We all remember John Kerin, a current resident of the ACT and a former treasurer in the Hawke government, who tendered his resignation after he could not outline government policy. In the past few days we had the recent circumstance of Bryan Green, deputy premier of Tasmania, who was compelled to resign from his position as both deputy premier and minister over deals he had done with former Labor ministers.
Throughout history ministers have repeatedly resigned their positions when they were at odds with government policy. Back in 1987 Laurie Brereton resigned as Minister for Public Works and Roads under the Unsworth government. Michael Yabsley on the Liberal side resigned as minister in protest over certain decisions that were taken. Mr Hargreaves reflected on the fact that I was once a member of his party, which prompted me to do a bit of research.
In 1972 the then Attorney-General of Tasmania, Mervyn Everett, gave his fiat to conservationists to challenge the lawfulness of the flooding of Lake Pedder. He refused to accept a cabinet directive to stop the litigation. The premier sacked him and assumed the role of Attorney-General. If you cannot comply with a cabinet decision you should not be part of the cabinet. That established principle under the Westminster system is part of the defined principle of collective ministerial responsibility.
Ministers who are not prepared to accept the collective decisions of cabinet are expected to resign. The leader of the government should dismiss ministers who speak out in public against cabinet decisions, but that is overridden by the factions. The government is factionally divided and people outside the system are calling the tune. It brings back
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .