Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the greatest fortunes of this country is to inherit the parliamentary traditions of the United Kingdom, in particular the Westminster tradition. I remind members opposite and, indeed, the ministers in the new government, the Abbott-Turnbull government. Page 65 of House of Representatives Practicetalks about examples of ministerial resignation. One of those examples is:

… misleading the Prime Minister, and through him the Parliament;

Another one is:

… disagreement with actions of the Prime Minister;

We saw the former Treasurer in the House yesterday talk about the revolving door of Prime Minister, of Treasurer and of many other officers of high state. It is a concern to my constituents and, I think, all Australians that we have seen such turnover in the ministry and in the prime ministership in the absence of elections.

In The Australian on Tuesday there was a long article where the plotters within the government insisted on bragging to journalists, and I would imagine this caused great consternation in the Liberal Party party room. I would also like to point out that it is in breach of the Westminster tradition. I have gone on about this before and, in case the members opposite do not think I have not applied the same rules to my own party, I remonstrated about this in the first caucus meeting after the election in 2010. Laurie Oakes wrote an article about it; you are free to read it if you like. So I am not applying this rule selectively.

Ministers have an obligation to be up-front with the Prime Minister about their intentions and their loyalty. If they are not, they are in breach of the Westminster tradition, and they are in breach of cabinet government. This article in The Australian, and there are a number of quotes in there of concern, states:

A vague campaign committee for Turnbull began to take shape. There was no chairman except for Turnbull himself.

So the then communications minister was in charge of a vague committee—that is, a cabal, a conspiracy—within the government to depose the Prime Minister. We then have:

Julie Bishop had been aware of the rumblings for weeks, having been approached by colleagues seeking out her disposition to a change on and off since February. But Turnbull was always counting numbers. She would not go to Abbott with every rumour.

Again, this is in knowledge of a conspiracy, in a cabal within the government, and not going to the Prime Minister and informing him.

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I talked about that. You want to shut up—walking into the room half-cocked. You want to think about it, mate. We then have Michaelia Cash, who is in the outer ministry. Apparently, she had been an Abbott supporter but:

… had come to believe that the PMO had become a locus of dysfunction infecting the entire government. Cash brought credibility to the argument that sections of the Right in the party were seriously on the move.

So we have a minister in the outer ministry who had supported the Prime Minister but suddenly does not—and neglects to inform the Prime Minister. That is your obligation, under the practice. That is your obligation as a minister and it is a serious obligation. You are supposed to go to the Prime Minister and say: 'I do not support you anymore. I am resigning.' Then you come into this parliament and tell people. That is the Westminster democracy.

Malcolm Fraser did it when he was a minister in the Gorton government and so did Andrew Peacock. So there are some recent examples in this country, and there are numerous examples in the United Kingdom. This is a serious problem, for the country, because it undermines cabinet government. How can any Prime Minister do anything? How can they be assured of anything if the cabinet is not up-front with them?

We go on from the Michaelia Cash to the member for Bradfield, Paul Fletcher, the parliamentary secretary to Turnbull. He was involved in this, according to The Australian. I do not mind being corrected. If it is people on the backbench, fair enough, but if people are in ministerial office this is a very serious problem. They are supposed to go to the Prime Minister. On and on it goes. The member for Sturt had a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister walked away from that meeting, in The Adelaide Club, thinking he had the member for Sturt's support. A very important figure, the member for Sturt, in the Liberal Party.

These are serious problems. This is a serious issue. We should be talking about it, because it is of vital importance to the way we govern this country. I have been concerned about it in my own party, in the past, and I talked about, in my own party, in the past. We fixed our rules so that it could never happen again. But those opposite need to think, clearly, about this. (Time expired)