❓ Mr Trenorden asks the Premier to delay an electoral law bill to allow consultation with country communities. The Premier defends the bill, citing historical precedent, the bicameral system, and previous coalition commitments to electoral reform.
AnsweredQoN 217Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ELECTORAL LAWS, CONSULTATION WITH COUNTRY COMMUNITIES
Yesterday, the Premier defended this House as being the appropriate place to decide changes on electoral laws rather than allowing Western Australians to hold a referendum. Because the next state election is not for three years, will he allow time for the vast country communities to be consulted by delaying this Bill until the new year? Dr GALLOP
Yesterday, the Premier defended this House as being the appropriate place to decide changes on electoral laws rather than allowing Western Australians to hold a referendum. Because the next state election is not for three years, will he allow time for the vast country communities to be consulted by delaying this Bill until the new year? Dr GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
I find this extraordinary. We have come into Parliament after eight years of the coalition Government and all of a sudden they have new concepts, including a referendum. I cannot remember the concept of a referendum being put before the industrial relations reform Bill. The Leader of the Opposition wants a green paper about the rights of gay and lesbian people in this State and we now have a new concept from the Leader of the National Party to delay the issue for a year. I remind members of this House that the debate over Western Australia’s electoral system is over 100 years old. Mr McNee: In your mind. Dr GALLOP: Not in my mind, but in history. First, the arguments that we heard yesterday were exactly the same arguments as were used in this place in 1913 when the Scaddan Government introduced its legislation. All of the arguments are the same. Secondly, Western Australia is blessed with two Houses of Parliament; that is, a lower and an upper House. The upper House is elected by proportional representation. The current Government does not have the numbers in the upper House and it will have to negotiate all of its legislation through both Houses of Parliament. In effect, we have had two elections. We had one for the lower House and one for the upper House. That provides the necessary checks and balances. Thirdly, we are doing something that is important for accountability. Our legislation on electoral reform will introduce into the Parliament what the joint party room agreed to in November 1995 and promised to do after the 1996 election. A media statement from the joint party room of the coalition of which the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were members states - . . . the Coalition parties have publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly will occur as our electoral system evolves. In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent. That is a very good policy. It also states - . . . there is a lack of consensus in the community over the need for change to the Legislative Council . . . . . . the coalition supports the current regional system. Of course, that is what the Attorney General has done. I tell the Leader of the National Party that what we are doing on accountability is what the coalition promised to do at the 1996 election but did not do. This proposal contains some good accountability, and we will take it through the Parliament.
Dr GALLOP replied: I find this extraordinary. We have come into Parliament after eight years of the coalition Government and all of a sudden they have new concepts, including a referendum. I cannot remember the concept of a referendum being put before the industrial relations reform Bill. The Leader of the Opposition wants a green paper about the rights of gay and lesbian people in this State and we now have a new concept from the Leader of the National Party to delay the issue for a year. I remind members of this House that the debate over Western Australia’s electoral system is over 100 years old. Mr McNee: In your mind. Dr GALLOP: Not in my mind, but in history. First, the arguments that we heard yesterday were exactly the same arguments as were used in this place in 1913 when the Scaddan Government introduced its legislation. All of the arguments are the same. Secondly, Western Australia is blessed with two Houses of Parliament; that is, a lower and an upper House. The upper House is elected by proportional representation. The current Government does not have the numbers in the upper House and it will have to negotiate all of its legislation through both Houses of Parliament. In effect, we have had two elections. We had one for the lower House and one for the upper House. That provides the necessary checks and balances. Thirdly, we are doing something that is important for accountability. Our legislation on electoral reform will introduce into the Parliament what the joint party room agreed to in November 1995 and promised to do after the 1996 election. A media statement from the joint party room of the coalition of which the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were members states - . . . the Coalition parties have publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly will occur as our electoral system evolves. In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent. That is a very good policy. It also states - . . . there is a lack of consensus in the community over the need for change to the Legislative Council . . . . . . the coalition supports the current regional system. Of course, that is what the Attorney General has done. I tell the Leader of the National Party that what we are doing on accountability is what the coalition promised to do at the 1996 election but did not do. This proposal contains some good accountability, and we will take it through the Parliament.
I find this extraordinary. We have come into Parliament after eight years of the coalition Government and all of a sudden they have new concepts, including a referendum. I cannot remember the concept of a referendum being put before the industrial relations reform Bill. The Leader of the Opposition wants a green paper about the rights of gay and lesbian people in this State and we now have a new concept from the Leader of the National Party to delay the issue for a year. I remind members of this House that the debate over Western Australia’s electoral system is over 100 years old. Mr McNee: In your mind. Dr GALLOP: Not in my mind, but in history. First, the arguments that we heard yesterday were exactly the same arguments as were used in this place in 1913 when the Scaddan Government introduced its legislation. All of the arguments are the same. Secondly, Western Australia is blessed with two Houses of Parliament; that is, a lower and an upper House. The upper House is elected by proportional representation. The current Government does not have the numbers in the upper House and it will have to negotiate all of its legislation through both Houses of Parliament. In effect, we have had two elections. We had one for the lower House and one for the upper House. That provides the necessary checks and balances. Thirdly, we are doing something that is important for accountability. Our legislation on electoral reform will introduce into the Parliament what the joint party room agreed to in November 1995 and promised to do after the 1996 election. A media statement from the joint party room of the coalition of which the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were members states - . . . the Coalition parties have publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly will occur as our electoral system evolves. In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent. That is a very good policy. It also states - . . . there is a lack of consensus in the community over the need for change to the Legislative Council . . . . . . the coalition supports the current regional system. Of course, that is what the Attorney General has done. I tell the Leader of the National Party that what we are doing on accountability is what the coalition promised to do at the 1996 election but did not do. This proposal contains some good accountability, and we will take it through the Parliament.
I remind members of this House that the debate over Western Australia’s electoral system is over 100 years old. Mr McNee: In your mind. Dr GALLOP: Not in my mind, but in history. First, the arguments that we heard yesterday were exactly the same arguments as were used in this place in 1913 when the Scaddan Government introduced its legislation. All of the arguments are the same. Secondly, Western Australia is blessed with two Houses of Parliament; that is, a lower and an upper House. The upper House is elected by proportional representation. The current Government does not have the numbers in the upper House and it will have to negotiate all of its legislation through both Houses of Parliament. In effect, we have had two elections. We had one for the lower House and one for the upper House. That provides the necessary checks and balances. Thirdly, we are doing something that is important for accountability. Our legislation on electoral reform will introduce into the Parliament what the joint party room agreed to in November 1995 and promised to do after the 1996 election. A media statement from the joint party room of the coalition of which the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were members states - . . . the Coalition parties have publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly will occur as our electoral system evolves. In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent. That is a very good policy. It also states - . . . there is a lack of consensus in the community over the need for change to the Legislative Council . . . . . . the coalition supports the current regional system. Of course, that is what the Attorney General has done. I tell the Leader of the National Party that what we are doing on accountability is what the coalition promised to do at the 1996 election but did not do. This proposal contains some good accountability, and we will take it through the Parliament.
Mr McNee: In your mind. Dr GALLOP: Not in my mind, but in history. First, the arguments that we heard yesterday were exactly the same arguments as were used in this place in 1913 when the Scaddan Government introduced its legislation. All of the arguments are the same. Secondly, Western Australia is blessed with two Houses of Parliament; that is, a lower and an upper House. The upper House is elected by proportional representation. The current Government does not have the numbers in the upper House and it will have to negotiate all of its legislation through both Houses of Parliament. In effect, we have had two elections. We had one for the lower House and one for the upper House. That provides the necessary checks and balances. Thirdly, we are doing something that is important for accountability. Our legislation on electoral reform will introduce into the Parliament what the joint party room agreed to in November 1995 and promised to do after the 1996 election. A media statement from the joint party room of the coalition of which the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were members states - . . . the Coalition parties have publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly will occur as our electoral system evolves. In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent. That is a very good policy. It also states - . . . there is a lack of consensus in the community over the need for change to the Legislative Council . . . . . . the coalition supports the current regional system. Of course, that is what the Attorney General has done. I tell the Leader of the National Party that what we are doing on accountability is what the coalition promised to do at the 1996 election but did not do. This proposal contains some good accountability, and we will take it through the Parliament.
Dr GALLOP: Not in my mind, but in history. First, the arguments that we heard yesterday were exactly the same arguments as were used in this place in 1913 when the Scaddan Government introduced its legislation. All of the arguments are the same. Secondly, Western Australia is blessed with two Houses of Parliament; that is, a lower and an upper House. The upper House is elected by proportional representation. The current Government does not have the numbers in the upper House and it will have to negotiate all of its legislation through both Houses of Parliament. In effect, we have had two elections. We had one for the lower House and one for the upper House. That provides the necessary checks and balances. Thirdly, we are doing something that is important for accountability. Our legislation on electoral reform will introduce into the Parliament what the joint party room agreed to in November 1995 and promised to do after the 1996 election. A media statement from the joint party room of the coalition of which the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were members states - . . . the Coalition parties have publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly will occur as our electoral system evolves. In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent. That is a very good policy. It also states - . . . there is a lack of consensus in the community over the need for change to the Legislative Council . . . . . . the coalition supports the current regional system. Of course, that is what the Attorney General has done. I tell the Leader of the National Party that what we are doing on accountability is what the coalition promised to do at the 1996 election but did not do. This proposal contains some good accountability, and we will take it through the Parliament.
Secondly, Western Australia is blessed with two Houses of Parliament; that is, a lower and an upper House. The upper House is elected by proportional representation. The current Government does not have the numbers in the upper House and it will have to negotiate all of its legislation through both Houses of Parliament. In effect, we have had two elections. We had one for the lower House and one for the upper House. That provides the necessary checks and balances. Thirdly, we are doing something that is important for accountability. Our legislation on electoral reform will introduce into the Parliament what the joint party room agreed to in November 1995 and promised to do after the 1996 election. A media statement from the joint party room of the coalition of which the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were members states - . . . the Coalition parties have publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly will occur as our electoral system evolves. In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent. That is a very good policy. It also states - . . . there is a lack of consensus in the community over the need for change to the Legislative Council . . . . . . the coalition supports the current regional system. Of course, that is what the Attorney General has done. I tell the Leader of the National Party that what we are doing on accountability is what the coalition promised to do at the 1996 election but did not do. This proposal contains some good accountability, and we will take it through the Parliament.
Thirdly, we are doing something that is important for accountability. Our legislation on electoral reform will introduce into the Parliament what the joint party room agreed to in November 1995 and promised to do after the 1996 election. A media statement from the joint party room of the coalition of which the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were members states - . . . the Coalition parties have publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly will occur as our electoral system evolves. In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent. That is a very good policy. It also states - . . . there is a lack of consensus in the community over the need for change to the Legislative Council . . . . . . the coalition supports the current regional system. Of course, that is what the Attorney General has done. I tell the Leader of the National Party that what we are doing on accountability is what the coalition promised to do at the 1996 election but did not do. This proposal contains some good accountability, and we will take it through the Parliament.
In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent.
. . . the coalition supports the current regional system.
Dr GALLOP replied: I find this extraordinary. We have come into Parliament after eight years of the coalition Government and all of a sudden they have new concepts, including a referendum. I cannot remember the concept of a referendum being put before the industrial relations reform Bill. The Leader of the Opposition wants a green paper about the rights of gay and lesbian people in this State and we now have a new concept from the Leader of the National Party to delay the issue for a year. I remind members of this House that the debate over Western Australia’s electoral system is over 100 years old. Mr McNee: In your mind. Dr GALLOP: Not in my mind, but in history. First, the arguments that we heard yesterday were exactly the same arguments as were used in this place in 1913 when the Scaddan Government introduced its legislation. All of the arguments are the same. Secondly, Western Australia is blessed with two Houses of Parliament; that is, a lower and an upper House. The upper House is elected by proportional representation. The current Government does not have the numbers in the upper House and it will have to negotiate all of its legislation through both Houses of Parliament. In effect, we have had two elections. We had one for the lower House and one for the upper House. That provides the necessary checks and balances. Thirdly, we are doing something that is important for accountability. Our legislation on electoral reform will introduce into the Parliament what the joint party room agreed to in November 1995 and promised to do after the 1996 election. A media statement from the joint party room of the coalition of which the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were members states - . . . the Coalition parties have publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly will occur as our electoral system evolves. In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent. That is a very good policy. It also states - . . . there is a lack of consensus in the community over the need for change to the Legislative Council . . . . . . the coalition supports the current regional system. Of course, that is what the Attorney General has done. I tell the Leader of the National Party that what we are doing on accountability is what the coalition promised to do at the 1996 election but did not do. This proposal contains some good accountability, and we will take it through the Parliament.
I find this extraordinary. We have come into Parliament after eight years of the coalition Government and all of a sudden they have new concepts, including a referendum. I cannot remember the concept of a referendum being put before the industrial relations reform Bill. The Leader of the Opposition wants a green paper about the rights of gay and lesbian people in this State and we now have a new concept from the Leader of the National Party to delay the issue for a year. I remind members of this House that the debate over Western Australia’s electoral system is over 100 years old. Mr McNee: In your mind. Dr GALLOP: Not in my mind, but in history. First, the arguments that we heard yesterday were exactly the same arguments as were used in this place in 1913 when the Scaddan Government introduced its legislation. All of the arguments are the same. Secondly, Western Australia is blessed with two Houses of Parliament; that is, a lower and an upper House. The upper House is elected by proportional representation. The current Government does not have the numbers in the upper House and it will have to negotiate all of its legislation through both Houses of Parliament. In effect, we have had two elections. We had one for the lower House and one for the upper House. That provides the necessary checks and balances. Thirdly, we are doing something that is important for accountability. Our legislation on electoral reform will introduce into the Parliament what the joint party room agreed to in November 1995 and promised to do after the 1996 election. A media statement from the joint party room of the coalition of which the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were members states - . . . the Coalition parties have publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly will occur as our electoral system evolves. In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent. That is a very good policy. It also states - . . . there is a lack of consensus in the community over the need for change to the Legislative Council . . . . . . the coalition supports the current regional system. Of course, that is what the Attorney General has done. I tell the Leader of the National Party that what we are doing on accountability is what the coalition promised to do at the 1996 election but did not do. This proposal contains some good accountability, and we will take it through the Parliament.
I remind members of this House that the debate over Western Australia’s electoral system is over 100 years old. Mr McNee: In your mind. Dr GALLOP: Not in my mind, but in history. First, the arguments that we heard yesterday were exactly the same arguments as were used in this place in 1913 when the Scaddan Government introduced its legislation. All of the arguments are the same. Secondly, Western Australia is blessed with two Houses of Parliament; that is, a lower and an upper House. The upper House is elected by proportional representation. The current Government does not have the numbers in the upper House and it will have to negotiate all of its legislation through both Houses of Parliament. In effect, we have had two elections. We had one for the lower House and one for the upper House. That provides the necessary checks and balances. Thirdly, we are doing something that is important for accountability. Our legislation on electoral reform will introduce into the Parliament what the joint party room agreed to in November 1995 and promised to do after the 1996 election. A media statement from the joint party room of the coalition of which the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were members states - . . . the Coalition parties have publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly will occur as our electoral system evolves. In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent. That is a very good policy. It also states - . . . there is a lack of consensus in the community over the need for change to the Legislative Council . . . . . . the coalition supports the current regional system. Of course, that is what the Attorney General has done. I tell the Leader of the National Party that what we are doing on accountability is what the coalition promised to do at the 1996 election but did not do. This proposal contains some good accountability, and we will take it through the Parliament.
Mr McNee: In your mind. Dr GALLOP: Not in my mind, but in history. First, the arguments that we heard yesterday were exactly the same arguments as were used in this place in 1913 when the Scaddan Government introduced its legislation. All of the arguments are the same. Secondly, Western Australia is blessed with two Houses of Parliament; that is, a lower and an upper House. The upper House is elected by proportional representation. The current Government does not have the numbers in the upper House and it will have to negotiate all of its legislation through both Houses of Parliament. In effect, we have had two elections. We had one for the lower House and one for the upper House. That provides the necessary checks and balances. Thirdly, we are doing something that is important for accountability. Our legislation on electoral reform will introduce into the Parliament what the joint party room agreed to in November 1995 and promised to do after the 1996 election. A media statement from the joint party room of the coalition of which the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were members states - . . . the Coalition parties have publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly will occur as our electoral system evolves. In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent. That is a very good policy. It also states - . . . there is a lack of consensus in the community over the need for change to the Legislative Council . . . . . . the coalition supports the current regional system. Of course, that is what the Attorney General has done. I tell the Leader of the National Party that what we are doing on accountability is what the coalition promised to do at the 1996 election but did not do. This proposal contains some good accountability, and we will take it through the Parliament.
Dr GALLOP: Not in my mind, but in history. First, the arguments that we heard yesterday were exactly the same arguments as were used in this place in 1913 when the Scaddan Government introduced its legislation. All of the arguments are the same. Secondly, Western Australia is blessed with two Houses of Parliament; that is, a lower and an upper House. The upper House is elected by proportional representation. The current Government does not have the numbers in the upper House and it will have to negotiate all of its legislation through both Houses of Parliament. In effect, we have had two elections. We had one for the lower House and one for the upper House. That provides the necessary checks and balances. Thirdly, we are doing something that is important for accountability. Our legislation on electoral reform will introduce into the Parliament what the joint party room agreed to in November 1995 and promised to do after the 1996 election. A media statement from the joint party room of the coalition of which the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were members states - . . . the Coalition parties have publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly will occur as our electoral system evolves. In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent. That is a very good policy. It also states - . . . there is a lack of consensus in the community over the need for change to the Legislative Council . . . . . . the coalition supports the current regional system. Of course, that is what the Attorney General has done. I tell the Leader of the National Party that what we are doing on accountability is what the coalition promised to do at the 1996 election but did not do. This proposal contains some good accountability, and we will take it through the Parliament.
Secondly, Western Australia is blessed with two Houses of Parliament; that is, a lower and an upper House. The upper House is elected by proportional representation. The current Government does not have the numbers in the upper House and it will have to negotiate all of its legislation through both Houses of Parliament. In effect, we have had two elections. We had one for the lower House and one for the upper House. That provides the necessary checks and balances. Thirdly, we are doing something that is important for accountability. Our legislation on electoral reform will introduce into the Parliament what the joint party room agreed to in November 1995 and promised to do after the 1996 election. A media statement from the joint party room of the coalition of which the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were members states - . . . the Coalition parties have publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly will occur as our electoral system evolves. In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent. That is a very good policy. It also states - . . . there is a lack of consensus in the community over the need for change to the Legislative Council . . . . . . the coalition supports the current regional system. Of course, that is what the Attorney General has done. I tell the Leader of the National Party that what we are doing on accountability is what the coalition promised to do at the 1996 election but did not do. This proposal contains some good accountability, and we will take it through the Parliament.
Thirdly, we are doing something that is important for accountability. Our legislation on electoral reform will introduce into the Parliament what the joint party room agreed to in November 1995 and promised to do after the 1996 election. A media statement from the joint party room of the coalition of which the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition were members states - . . . the Coalition parties have publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly will occur as our electoral system evolves. In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent. That is a very good policy. It also states - . . . there is a lack of consensus in the community over the need for change to the Legislative Council . . . . . . the coalition supports the current regional system. Of course, that is what the Attorney General has done. I tell the Leader of the National Party that what we are doing on accountability is what the coalition promised to do at the 1996 election but did not do. This proposal contains some good accountability, and we will take it through the Parliament.
In principle, agreement has been reached on a system which would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent.
. . . the coalition supports the current regional system.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.