Editorial: Cabinet rules must not be bent for Turia

The cabinet manual could hardly be more explicit: "Once Cabinet makes a decision ... ministers must support it, regardless of their personal views." As for the consequences of breaching that dictate, the Cabinet rule book is equally precise: "Any public dissociation from Cabinet decisions by individual ministers ... is unacceptable." How then could Tariana Turia, a junior minister, have imagined that she could vote against the Government's foreshore and seabed legislation without losing her ministerial jobs? Perhaps naivety is the only possible explanation. But whatever the cause, Mrs Turia is now caught in a cleft stick of her own making.

When the foreshore issue first arose, she should have been far more aware of the choices before her. Certainly, Parekura Horomia, the Minister of Maori Affairs, was. He recognised that the doctrine of Cabinet collective responsibility bound him to Government policy. In effect, his Cabinet responsibilities took precedence over the views of his constituents or, indeed, his own thoughts.

Mrs Turia, however, chose to speak out on behalf of her Te Tai Hauauru constituents and to voice her own beliefs. If that action were to climax next Thursday in her crossing the floor and opposing the foreshore bill, the consequences would be inevitable. A Cabinet openly divided is a spectacle that no Government can contemplate.

As it is, it appears Mrs Turia may be coaxed out of such an outright demonstration of opposition. A Prime Minister set on avoiding a byelection has offered her two options for keeping her ministerial jobs - abstention, or staying away from Parliament in symbolic protest and not voting on the bill. Alternatively, Mrs Turia could avoid the long-term loss of her portfolios by voting against the legislation and then resigning, with the likelihood of returning from the backbenches to reclaim those portfolios after the bill is passed.

Helen Clark's softly, softly approach to Mrs Turia speaks volumes of her worry about a byelection. This has been enough to supplant a usual determination to be seen as an effective and decisive manager who expects - and receives - a high degree of loyalty; a leader, indeed, who will not tolerate breaches of the Cabinet Manual.

The Prime Minister, however, has good cause for tentativeness. Already the foreshore issue has brought the National Party back from a state close to comatose. A byelection would in all likelihood be an added insult to the Government. Recent history has demonstrated the Labour Party can no longer count on the mechanical support of Maori. On such a lightning-rod issue as the foreshore, the vote would surely go to the person, not the party.

On Tuesday Mrs Turia said she now accepted the doctrine of Cabinet collective responsibility. She was also noticeably absent when the foreshore hikoi crossed the Auckland Harbour Bridge. This may provide a hint that she is considering the option of avoiding casting a vote; that, in effect, her wish to retain her portfolios, and perhaps her loyalty to the party, are outweighing the call of her constituents to stay staunch and oppose the legislation.

She is being encouraged along that path by advice from within the Government's ranks that a no-show would be the equivalent of Parihaka-style passive resistance. The comparison is ridiculous. If Mrs Turia stays away from Parliament next Thursday, she will gain few plaudits in Maoridom. Indeed, she will surrender all the status she has accrued as the figurehead for Maori anger over the foreshore. Her mana will be diminished in the eyes of her constituents, probably irreparably.

Effectively, Mrs Turia has backed herself into a corner. There is no easy way out. Snags abound, even in the compromises she is now considering. Of only one thing can she be certain: avoiding the issue would be an abrogation of all that parliamentarians should stand for.