Julia Gillard's cabinet has been leaking. Most recently, such leaks puprorted to reveal a split among ministers over asylum seeker policy, following the collapse of her Malaysian Solution. Such disagreements aside, leaks themselves are a sure sign of government instability.
Cabinet solidarity is one of the essential characteristics of the Westminster system of government. Furthermore its central feature is common to all expressions of collective leadership because it enshrines virtues like unity and teamwork.
Cabinet solidarity operates alongside associated concepts like cabinet secrecy, which protects official documents like papers and minutes from publication, and collective ministerial responsibility. These guiding rules make cabinet discussions sacrosanct, assisting the whole team to work together.
Solidarity and unity are understood by most groups, including trade unions, political parties and pressure groups, as necessary for success. Slogans like 'In unity is strength' and 'Solidarity forever' sum them up. That is why disunity and breaches of solidarity are taken seriously.
Importantly the concept does not mean cabinets should not have private disagreements about policy before, during and even after decisions are made. Unity does not mean uniformity. That would be both unrealistic and unhealthy. But disagreements should not be public.
In berating her ministerial colleagues the Prime Minister has rightly pointed out that if the system is working properly there should be frank and fearless discussions within cabinet. What we know of past cabinets suggests discussion is often fierce and passionate.
But solidarity means that eventually the team must come first. If a team member has such strong feelings about an issue that they cannot accept the discipline that comes with cabinet solidarity, then they should resign their position. If they stay on and then break cabinet solidarity by speaking out against a cabinet decision then they can and should be sacked.
A cabinet decision, such as the Gillard Government decision to process asylum seekers onshore rather than explore the Nauru option, binds all cabinet members. There is one practical reason for this. Ministers have to defend the government's position in Parliament and in the community even if they disagree with the majority view.
That can be extremely uncomfortable. But cabinet solidarity means ministers can retain their dignity even if they are 'rolled' in cabinet, as they often will be if it is not to be just a rubber stamp. Secrecy and solidarity mean ministers are saved from some of the ignominy that comes with being unable to win the argument.
Cabinet leaks are extremely damaging. This was evidenced by the Labor leaks, attributed to Kevin Rudd or one of his supporters or staff, during the last federal election campaign. These leaks purported to reveal who said what in the Rudd cabinet. Gillard, the new PM, was severely damaged by these leaks, which allegedly revealed her position on several cabinet decisions, including paid maternity leave. The kerfuffle derailed the Government's election campaign for at least a week.
Managing breaches of solidarity is difficult. Refusing to comment on the grounds of 'what happens in cabinet stays in cabinet' can seem defensive and unconvinving even though it may be the best strategy. The alternative, commenting, is itself another breach and gives further publicity to the leak.
The impact invariably benefits opponents of the government. It gives the impression of division and disunity, even though it would be remarkable if on such a controversial issue as the handling of asylum seekers the decision was unanimous. The recent leak makes Bowen's job more difficult as they reveal that he was in the minority.
Finally, the existence of leaks shows that there is a wrecker in the cabinet; or at least someone who is irresponsible enough to think the ends justify the means. Someone in the minority thinks they know best. They may do, but that is not how cabinet works.
The worst aspect of the cabinet leaks is the likelihood that they are the product not just of understandable policy differences, but of leadership destabilisation. If Gillard is the target then this is a particularly unethical way of undermining her authority.
John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University and a columnist with the Canberra Times.