Michael Moore, elected as an Independent at the February election, is to join the Liberal Ministry as Minister for Health. The precise terms of his joining have not been made public, more’s the pity, but its broad outline is that Mr Moore can retain his independence on a stated list of matters, but is part of the Government on others. In his own portfolio area he must implement Cabinet decisions even if he disagrees with them. He forgoes his right to ask questions at Question Time and agrees not to use resignation threats to get his way.
Mr Moore brings to the health ministry a range of skills that are not otherwise available among Liberal ranks. He has had a keen interest in drug-law reform and euthanasia and in pursuing those interests he has picked up a great deal of knowledge and experience on a wide range of health issues, including prevention techniques, epidemiology, palliative care, terminal illness and so on. He should not, of course, use his new position to pursue those two narrow goals. Indeed, they should now go to the back-burner. He is Health Minister for the whole territory, including, it must be said, the public and private hospitals run at Calvary, where there might be a perception of bias flowing from differences over those three issues. But his pursuit of those issues and his related post-graduate studies while an independent have given him a broader knowledge that can help government.
Mr Moore, as an independent in the last three assemblies, has had to cover the whole field and he has also steered legislation and legislative amendments through the Assembly on his own. He will broaden the social and economic viewpoint of the government will be broadened. There was a danger that the Carnell Government, needing only the support of the Osborne independents, might have taken on a narrow agenda both economically and socially that was not especially in tune with broader community views. There is an argument that the electorate supported Kate Carnell personally, as much as the Liberal Party, and her views are more socially liberal than those of most (or all) of her colleagues.
The previous Minister for Health, Gary Humphries, is not likely to be jealous. He would probably acknowledge that he had too much on his plate. A sharing of the load should improve government.
A disadvantage is that by taking a ministry over the three Liberals not in the ministry, Mr Moore might cause dissention and perhaps instability. However, both Trevor Kaine and Greg Cornwell had been known to engage in dissention and backroom stirring before Mr Moore’s appointment. As to the third Liberal, Harold Hird, there has been little in his performance in the past three years to suggest that he might handle a ministry with any distinction.
A disadvantage from Mr Moore’s point of view is that a lot of his voters will see this as an act of betrayal. Many people voted for him as an independent — a person to question the government, not to join it. There is some merit in that view. Others, however, voted for all or some of the elements of his agenda. Mr Moore obviously felt that he could not do a great deal in pursuit of that agenda from the cross-benches in a situation where the Government had an effective majority without needing him. It was not until the outcome of the election was known did he know the weakness of his position as a cross-bench back-bencher. The trouble for Mr Moore is that he might not be able to achieve any more of that agenda from the ministry.
Mrs Carnell has taken a big risk. Some voters might greet Mr Moore’s elevation to the health portfolio with alarm — those opposed to abortion, euthanasia, the heroin trial in particular. But many in politics share Mr Moore’s views on some or all of these topics; they just do not express them. If anything goes wrong with health, Mr Moore’s views on these three issues are bound to be dragged in to the argument. Further, Mr Moore’s strong views on education might result in strife down the track. In the past, Mr Moore’s insistence on quarantining education spending has caused minority governments to tread more warily than they otherwise might or should have done. That wariness probably spread beyond the absolute level of funding to a wariness over juggling the mix of spending within the education portfolio.
If Mrs Carnell has given any guarantee about the level of total education funding, she should not resile from taking money from some parts of the portfolio and giving it to other parts to increase efficiency and to improve overall educational outcomes.
As it happens, Mrs Carnell’s risk is a question of balance of risk. She could have picked one of her three colleagues to fill the ministry who might perform poorly causing political problems not solvable by cutting him adrift — an option she has with Mr Moore. Mr Moore also gives her ballast for her minority government.
There is nothing unusual in a government offering an independent or minor party a ministry or the speakership. It has been done in several states and federally in the past. It is unusual but not unprecedented. Mrs Carnell could have stuck with just four ministers, but she has seen how stretching the workload has its risks. Balancing all those risks, the selection of Mr Moore was not unreasonable.
Mrs Carnell and Mr Moore cited the Pettit report as the catalyst for the move. But it is only a catalyst. There is nothing in that report that changed the standrad Westminster position: that it is open to any MP to negotiate a position in the ministry. The experiment must stand or fall on that negotiation and not be given external legitimacy on the back of the Pettit report.