Read on Twitter
The Clerk's comments make seen through the prism of the conventions of responsible government.
The PM is constitutionally responsible for all affairs of government. The finance minister's statutory and constitutional responsibility would be salient here as well. https://twitter.com/VassyKapelos/status/1285653471820161025
The PM is constitutionally responsible for all affairs of government. The finance minister's statutory and constitutional responsibility would be salient here as well. https://twitter.com/VassyKapelos/status/1285653471820161025
How we reconcile these conventions with the Conflict of Interest Act is another matter, but it's important to note that these conventions are of a constitutional status.
Put differently, even if the PM had recused himself, he'd be responsible and accountable for the decision, constitutionally speaking.
We need to be wary of heading down a road where a PM could claim that they aren't responsible or accountable owing to a recusal.
We need to be wary of heading down a road where a PM could claim that they aren't responsible or accountable owing to a recusal.
As the Secretary to the Cabinet, and the official responsible for the integrity of the cabinet system, I can certainly see why the Clerk would emphasize that the PM and MinFin were expected to take part.
And by take part here I mean in the overall development of the policy, not necessarily the Cabinet meeting itself.
If we listen carefully to the video, the Clerk sidesteps the recusal issue (which makes sense as a civil servant) and focuses on whether you could extricate the PM and MinFin from the development of the policy.
