Why Turia will be allowed to abstain

As a junior minister, Tariana Turia will set a major precedent and weaken the longstanding convention of collective Cabinet responsibility if she abstains on the Government's foreshore and seabed legislation.

But does it matter?

If she does follow through on her intention to abstain, the Associate Maori Affairs Minister will be in breach of the convention that requires ministers to support Cabinet decisions regardless of their personal views. Abstention is not opposition. But neither is it support.

Going by historical practice, Mrs Turia should resign her ministerial warrant or be sacked by the Prime Minister.

The Cabinet Manual, which is the bible guiding ministerial behaviour, makes no exception for ministers like Mrs Turia who hold their portfolios as ministers outside the Cabinet. They are still part of the Executive. If they accept the job, they accept they are bound by collective responsibility.

The convention of collective Cabinet responsibility allows ministers to argue hammer and tongs in the privacy of the Cabinet room. But once a decision is arrived at, they must all come in behind that decision whether they like it or not.

If they do not like it, they can shove off. If they publicly express their opposition to Government policy, then they get the shove.

The reason is simple. The Government must present a united front if it is to enjoy the confidence of Parliament and the public. If ministers spoke out against Government policies all the time, no one would have any confidence in the Government, its policies and, very quickly, its very survival. Democracy could be weakened.

As constitutional lawyer Mai Chen observed when John Tamihere had a go at Labour's welfare policy last year, ministers have got to speak with one voice outside the Cabinet room otherwise it is not clear what a government's policy actually is.

Furthermore, people do not vote for single ministers. They vote for a government. At the end of the day, if ministers do not hang together they will hang separately.

The Cabinet Manual says the Prime Minister needs to be confident that individual ministers are representing the Government line.

However, in Mrs Turia's case, Helen Clark has clearly struck a deal which will allow the minister to abstain and not lose her job.

The Prime Minister gets the foreshore and seabed legislation through Parliament and avoids a backlash from Maoridom by not sacking her minister.

Mrs Turia keeps her job, but does not lose too much face by still being able to lodge a partial protest against Government policy.

All very convenient. But does it matter that Mrs Turia is in breach?

On one level, it's a simple case of the interests of an MP's constituents running smack into what the Government perceives to be the national interest. Mrs Turia is stuck in the middle. Under the Cabinet convention, she has to make a choice.

However, a convention which was constructed for first-past-the-post, single-party government may not suit the complexities of minority coalition government under MMP.

The convention has been diluted by the insertion of the "agree-to-disagree" clause which allows coalition partners to hold different positions on a policy. That clause was written into the Cabinet Manual at the request of the Alliance, which feared being suffocated by Labour when the pair went into coalition after the 1999 election.

It could be argued that Mrs Turia and the rest of Labour's Maori caucus are in a similar boat.

They are a faction inside a big party. The Alliance was a faction outside a big party.

Under first-past-the-post, factions tended to stay inside the big party because they had no hope of winning seats in Parliament. Under MMP, factions do have a good chance of winning seats if they go it alone. That poses a problem for a Labour Prime Minister who has to give the party's Maori faction some latitude - or risk seeing that faction split from Labour and strike out on its own.

That gives Mrs Turia leverage, more so because Labour's Maori faction holds the balance of power in the current Parliament. That is why she will be allowed to abstain.

Where does this leave the convention of collective Cabinet responsibility? The answer is that, like any convention, it is adapting to the changed circumstances of MMP.

A sign that adaptation is happening was the absence yesterday of any real Opposition clamour for her resignation.

However, collective Cabinet responsibility remains fundamental to the underpinning of a government.

It is noteworthy that the Alliance and subsequently Jim Anderton's Progressive Coalition have invoked the "agree to disagree" clause on very few occasions.

Invoking it frequently would devalue the clause - and undermine confidence in the Government. The same applies in Mrs Turia's case.

She is being permitted one abstention. It cannot become a habit.

But it is not likely to. Something as vexing as the ownership of the foreshore and seabed does not pop up and bite a government every day.

Track record

* Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, and Associate Minister of Maori Affairs, Health, Housing and Social Development.

* She has a long involvement in whanau, hapu and iwi development, in health, employment, and education.

* Married with six children, Mrs Turia is a member of the Whanganui, Ngati Apa, Nga Wairiki, Nga Rauru and Ngati Tuwharetoa iwi.