There are more reasons for Kate Carnell not to be Cabinet than for her to be in it.
Surely, if she resigned because she faced a no-confidence motion because of her handling of her previous ministry, the same lack of confidence should apply to a new ministry. The two independents whose vote would have been critical in bringing her down – Dave Rugendyke and Paul Osborne – have argued that the loss of the Chief Ministership is penalty enough. Mr Rugendyke said , “”I watched her in the chamber this morning. She looked like a truly broken woman. I feel genuinely sorry for her.” It is an inappropriate crime-and-punishment approach to ministerial responsibility. But it is a matter of governance and politics, not crime and punishment. If they no longer had confidence in her administration, that would hold for the Treasury portfolio under which she was responsible for a great deal of the Bruce Stadium redevelopment, and the chief ministership and any other portfolio. If they thought it were a matter of punishment, it would have been more appropriate to censure her.
It is untenable and inconsistent to say a person should not hold one ministry but can hold another. If they thought that, they should never have come to the position where they would vote for a no-confidence motion in the first place.
It would set a dangerous precedent, except the logic of it is so flawed that it would be difficult to imagine any future cross-benchers moving no-confidence in a person one day and allowing them back in the ministry they next.
When in the last Assembly, a motion of no-confidence was passed in Wayne Berry arising from matters in his sport portfolio, then Chief Minister Rosemary Follett understood she could not keep him in the ministry without attracting a no-confidence motion against herself. That would be the only way the original no-confidence motion could be enforced.
The only way for someone to make a comeback to the ministry after an Assembly no-confidence motion is after an election. Then the confidence of the people should be enough for MLAs to have their confidence in the removed minister restored.
Mr Rugendyke said it was not his business to be in the party room when the new Chief Minister, Gary Humphries, picks his ministry. Yet it was his business to determine who in the Liberal Party could NOT be Chief Minister.
Mr Humphries has given Mrs Carnell the portfolios of Tourism, Arts, Business and Information Technology. His reasoning was that she should not have one of the big ministries like Treasury, Health, Education, Urban Services or Attorney-General, because the other ministers were doing well in those and Mrs Carnell was going to leave the Assembly soon to go to the private sector. There is no logic or principle in that. He has cobbled together some cushy job on a ministerial salary pending her departure.
He should not have done for pragmatic reasons. The public will be outraged. And he will be seen to be under Mrs Carnell’s shadow while she remains in Cabinet.
Also he should not have done it for reasons of principle. If the independents cannot see the inconsistency of having someone in whom the Assembly has no confidence as Chief Minister appointed as a Minister, Mr Humphries should have seen it himself.
From Mrs Carnell’s own point of view, she should not have asked or accepted a job in Cabinet. There were other ways to ensure a smooth transfer of administration. If a majority of MLA did not want her to continue as Chief Minister, it is demeaning to cling to a vestige of power as Minister for and artificially-cobbled-together Ministry.
As Lady Macbeth said, “”Stand not upon the order of your going, but go at once.”