Page 2106 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If we fast forward to the 1980s we find that ALP Minister West resigned over uranium. In 1989 Gary Punch, an ALP Minister, resigned over Sydney airport. We need only to look at events over the past few days to establish another relevant precedent. Whilst not a minister, the Nationals MP John Forrest quit as the party’s chief whip after abstaining from a vote on the controversial migration laws. After his resignation as chief whip Mr Vaile’s office said:
John has served our party with distinction as chief whip and he has, as always, acted with honour today.
He abstained from voting against government policy; so he resigned. What these two ministers have done is completely contrary to cabinet’s views. They were part of that cabinet decision-making process on school closures and superannuation. They put their faction’s view ahead of their own and ahead of cabinet’s decisions.
Mr Corbell: What about Michael Moore?
MR SPEAKER: Order! I have called Minister Corbell to order several times. He will cease interjecting.
MR STEFANIAK: They said to the community, “We do not believe in the way we voted at this conference. It is just one of those things we have to do in the Labor Party because of the factional system.” After that how can we have any confidence in anything they say? The irrefutable fact is that both ministers voted publicly against two key cabinet decisions announced in the budget. Under the Westminster system they have no choice: they have to be dismissed or they have to resign. They cannot continue to hold their positions as cabinet ministers.
In relation to this issue the Chief Minister said, “Let us not worry about it; let us move on.” The government’s ministerial code of conduct, which was adopted in 2004, requires these ministers to be dismissed or to resign. When the Chief Minister introduced his ministerial code of conduct in February 2004 we were told that the government would apply a rigorous code. At the time the Chief Minister emphasised that the values of fairness, openness and responsibility were the hallmarks of his revised code. Back in 2004 the Chief Minister was adamant when he said:
The Government does not intend to simply adopt a code and think nothing more of it.
He went on to say:
I consider the principles and standards set out in the code apply each day a minister is in office and are relevant to each decision he or she makes. The government will not back away from the Code when it suits: we will stand by it and uphold it and uphold its values.
As always, those were noble sentiments from the Chief Minister, but when he needed to implement that code he squibbed it. It is patently clear that the government backed away from its own ministerial code of conduct. It is also clear that it will not apply it to these
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .