❓ Mr Barron-Sullivan questions the Premier about the use of taxpayer funds in a legal challenge to electoral laws, accusing the government of pursuing a political agenda. The Premier defends the government's actions as upholding the will of Parliament and advocating for fair electoral representation.
AnsweredQoN 768Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ELECTORAL REFORM LEGISLATION 768. Mr BARRON-SULLIVAN to the Premier: (1) Does the Premier understand that the Minister for Electoral Affairs has instructed counsel to argue on behalf of the State that the Electoral Distribution Act 1947 is partially invalid and to attack the entrenchment provisions of the State’s Constitution? (2) Does the Premier understand that taxpayers’ funds are not being used to defend this legislation on their behalf - as he implied yesterday was proper - but instead, due to a conflict of interest, are being used to run a similar political case as the Premier and the member for Fremantle did in 1994? Dr GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I understand that the Government is the defendant and is duty bound to go into the court to argue the case on behalf of the Parliament of Western Australia which passed this legislation. What is going on here is simple. The Liberal Party has too many rural members and it cannot escape their grip and philosophy. The National Party is reliant upon non-metropolitan seats and is therefore vigorously defending its interests. They are the people who are interested in this issue. The public of Western Australia wants us to get on with the job and introduce a fair electoral system in which the people have a fair chance based on their individual interests and ideas so that when they vote they receive an equal say. What we are seeing here is the last gasp of a dying breed. Those opposite are in their coffin, the coffin is being lowered and they do not like it. I will teach them a little lesson. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr GALLOP: We on this side of the House have fought for the principle of one vote, one value for over 100 years. We have been pursuing this principle for 100 years. We have had to be accommodating, because for a large portion of that time whenever a Labor Government was elected to the lower House, the conservatives in the upper House lined up and vetoed legislation. They did it every time. Interestingly, in 1996 we thought that the light of good argument had finally descended upon the party rooms of the Liberal and National Parties, because they went into the election supporting one vote, one value, but after the election they broke their promise to the electors and did not introduce the legislation. We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
ELECTORAL REFORM LEGISLATION
(1) Does the Premier understand that the Minister for Electoral Affairs has instructed counsel to argue on behalf of the State that the Electoral Distribution Act 1947 is partially invalid and to attack the entrenchment provisions of the State’s Constitution? (2) Does the Premier understand that taxpayers’ funds are not being used to defend this legislation on their behalf - as he implied yesterday was proper - but instead, due to a conflict of interest, are being used to run a similar political case as the Premier and the member for Fremantle did in 1994? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) I understand that the Government is the defendant and is duty bound to go into the court to argue the case on behalf of the Parliament of Western Australia which passed this legislation. What is going on here is simple. The Liberal Party has too many rural members and it cannot escape their grip and philosophy. The National Party is reliant upon non-metropolitan seats and is therefore vigorously defending its interests. They are the people who are interested in this issue. The public of Western Australia wants us to get on with the job and introduce a fair electoral system in which the people have a fair chance based on their individual interests and ideas so that when they vote they receive an equal say. What we are seeing here is the last gasp of a dying breed. Those opposite are in their coffin, the coffin is being lowered and they do not like it. I will teach them a little lesson. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr GALLOP: We on this side of the House have fought for the principle of one vote, one value for over 100 years. We have been pursuing this principle for 100 years. We have had to be accommodating, because for a large portion of that time whenever a Labor Government was elected to the lower House, the conservatives in the upper House lined up and vetoed legislation. They did it every time. Interestingly, in 1996 we thought that the light of good argument had finally descended upon the party rooms of the Liberal and National Parties, because they went into the election supporting one vote, one value, but after the election they broke their promise to the electors and did not introduce the legislation. We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
(2) Does the Premier understand that taxpayers’ funds are not being used to defend this legislation on their behalf - as he implied yesterday was proper - but instead, due to a conflict of interest, are being used to run a similar political case as the Premier and the member for Fremantle did in 1994? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) I understand that the Government is the defendant and is duty bound to go into the court to argue the case on behalf of the Parliament of Western Australia which passed this legislation. What is going on here is simple. The Liberal Party has too many rural members and it cannot escape their grip and philosophy. The National Party is reliant upon non-metropolitan seats and is therefore vigorously defending its interests. They are the people who are interested in this issue. The public of Western Australia wants us to get on with the job and introduce a fair electoral system in which the people have a fair chance based on their individual interests and ideas so that when they vote they receive an equal say. What we are seeing here is the last gasp of a dying breed. Those opposite are in their coffin, the coffin is being lowered and they do not like it. I will teach them a little lesson. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr GALLOP: We on this side of the House have fought for the principle of one vote, one value for over 100 years. We have been pursuing this principle for 100 years. We have had to be accommodating, because for a large portion of that time whenever a Labor Government was elected to the lower House, the conservatives in the upper House lined up and vetoed legislation. They did it every time. Interestingly, in 1996 we thought that the light of good argument had finally descended upon the party rooms of the Liberal and National Parties, because they went into the election supporting one vote, one value, but after the election they broke their promise to the electors and did not introduce the legislation. We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) I understand that the Government is the defendant and is duty bound to go into the court to argue the case on behalf of the Parliament of Western Australia which passed this legislation. What is going on here is simple. The Liberal Party has too many rural members and it cannot escape their grip and philosophy. The National Party is reliant upon non-metropolitan seats and is therefore vigorously defending its interests. They are the people who are interested in this issue. The public of Western Australia wants us to get on with the job and introduce a fair electoral system in which the people have a fair chance based on their individual interests and ideas so that when they vote they receive an equal say. What we are seeing here is the last gasp of a dying breed. Those opposite are in their coffin, the coffin is being lowered and they do not like it. I will teach them a little lesson. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr GALLOP: We on this side of the House have fought for the principle of one vote, one value for over 100 years. We have been pursuing this principle for 100 years. We have had to be accommodating, because for a large portion of that time whenever a Labor Government was elected to the lower House, the conservatives in the upper House lined up and vetoed legislation. They did it every time. Interestingly, in 1996 we thought that the light of good argument had finally descended upon the party rooms of the Liberal and National Parties, because they went into the election supporting one vote, one value, but after the election they broke their promise to the electors and did not introduce the legislation. We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
(1)-(2) I understand that the Government is the defendant and is duty bound to go into the court to argue the case on behalf of the Parliament of Western Australia which passed this legislation. What is going on here is simple. The Liberal Party has too many rural members and it cannot escape their grip and philosophy. The National Party is reliant upon non-metropolitan seats and is therefore vigorously defending its interests. They are the people who are interested in this issue. The public of Western Australia wants us to get on with the job and introduce a fair electoral system in which the people have a fair chance based on their individual interests and ideas so that when they vote they receive an equal say. What we are seeing here is the last gasp of a dying breed. Those opposite are in their coffin, the coffin is being lowered and they do not like it. I will teach them a little lesson. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr GALLOP: We on this side of the House have fought for the principle of one vote, one value for over 100 years. We have been pursuing this principle for 100 years. We have had to be accommodating, because for a large portion of that time whenever a Labor Government was elected to the lower House, the conservatives in the upper House lined up and vetoed legislation. They did it every time. Interestingly, in 1996 we thought that the light of good argument had finally descended upon the party rooms of the Liberal and National Parties, because they went into the election supporting one vote, one value, but after the election they broke their promise to the electors and did not introduce the legislation. We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr GALLOP: We on this side of the House have fought for the principle of one vote, one value for over 100 years. We have been pursuing this principle for 100 years. We have had to be accommodating, because for a large portion of that time whenever a Labor Government was elected to the lower House, the conservatives in the upper House lined up and vetoed legislation. They did it every time. Interestingly, in 1996 we thought that the light of good argument had finally descended upon the party rooms of the Liberal and National Parties, because they went into the election supporting one vote, one value, but after the election they broke their promise to the electors and did not introduce the legislation. We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr GALLOP: We on this side of the House have fought for the principle of one vote, one value for over 100 years. We have been pursuing this principle for 100 years. We have had to be accommodating, because for a large portion of that time whenever a Labor Government was elected to the lower House, the conservatives in the upper House lined up and vetoed legislation. They did it every time. Interestingly, in 1996 we thought that the light of good argument had finally descended upon the party rooms of the Liberal and National Parties, because they went into the election supporting one vote, one value, but after the election they broke their promise to the electors and did not introduce the legislation. We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
Dr GALLOP: We on this side of the House have fought for the principle of one vote, one value for over 100 years. We have been pursuing this principle for 100 years. We have had to be accommodating, because for a large portion of that time whenever a Labor Government was elected to the lower House, the conservatives in the upper House lined up and vetoed legislation. They did it every time. Interestingly, in 1996 we thought that the light of good argument had finally descended upon the party rooms of the Liberal and National Parties, because they went into the election supporting one vote, one value, but after the election they broke their promise to the electors and did not introduce the legislation. We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
ELECTORAL REFORM LEGISLATION
(1) Does the Premier understand that the Minister for Electoral Affairs has instructed counsel to argue on behalf of the State that the Electoral Distribution Act 1947 is partially invalid and to attack the entrenchment provisions of the State’s Constitution? (2) Does the Premier understand that taxpayers’ funds are not being used to defend this legislation on their behalf - as he implied yesterday was proper - but instead, due to a conflict of interest, are being used to run a similar political case as the Premier and the member for Fremantle did in 1994? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) I understand that the Government is the defendant and is duty bound to go into the court to argue the case on behalf of the Parliament of Western Australia which passed this legislation. What is going on here is simple. The Liberal Party has too many rural members and it cannot escape their grip and philosophy. The National Party is reliant upon non-metropolitan seats and is therefore vigorously defending its interests. They are the people who are interested in this issue. The public of Western Australia wants us to get on with the job and introduce a fair electoral system in which the people have a fair chance based on their individual interests and ideas so that when they vote they receive an equal say. What we are seeing here is the last gasp of a dying breed. Those opposite are in their coffin, the coffin is being lowered and they do not like it. I will teach them a little lesson. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr GALLOP: We on this side of the House have fought for the principle of one vote, one value for over 100 years. We have been pursuing this principle for 100 years. We have had to be accommodating, because for a large portion of that time whenever a Labor Government was elected to the lower House, the conservatives in the upper House lined up and vetoed legislation. They did it every time. Interestingly, in 1996 we thought that the light of good argument had finally descended upon the party rooms of the Liberal and National Parties, because they went into the election supporting one vote, one value, but after the election they broke their promise to the electors and did not introduce the legislation. We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
(2) Does the Premier understand that taxpayers’ funds are not being used to defend this legislation on their behalf - as he implied yesterday was proper - but instead, due to a conflict of interest, are being used to run a similar political case as the Premier and the member for Fremantle did in 1994? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) I understand that the Government is the defendant and is duty bound to go into the court to argue the case on behalf of the Parliament of Western Australia which passed this legislation. What is going on here is simple. The Liberal Party has too many rural members and it cannot escape their grip and philosophy. The National Party is reliant upon non-metropolitan seats and is therefore vigorously defending its interests. They are the people who are interested in this issue. The public of Western Australia wants us to get on with the job and introduce a fair electoral system in which the people have a fair chance based on their individual interests and ideas so that when they vote they receive an equal say. What we are seeing here is the last gasp of a dying breed. Those opposite are in their coffin, the coffin is being lowered and they do not like it. I will teach them a little lesson. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr GALLOP: We on this side of the House have fought for the principle of one vote, one value for over 100 years. We have been pursuing this principle for 100 years. We have had to be accommodating, because for a large portion of that time whenever a Labor Government was elected to the lower House, the conservatives in the upper House lined up and vetoed legislation. They did it every time. Interestingly, in 1996 we thought that the light of good argument had finally descended upon the party rooms of the Liberal and National Parties, because they went into the election supporting one vote, one value, but after the election they broke their promise to the electors and did not introduce the legislation. We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) I understand that the Government is the defendant and is duty bound to go into the court to argue the case on behalf of the Parliament of Western Australia which passed this legislation. What is going on here is simple. The Liberal Party has too many rural members and it cannot escape their grip and philosophy. The National Party is reliant upon non-metropolitan seats and is therefore vigorously defending its interests. They are the people who are interested in this issue. The public of Western Australia wants us to get on with the job and introduce a fair electoral system in which the people have a fair chance based on their individual interests and ideas so that when they vote they receive an equal say. What we are seeing here is the last gasp of a dying breed. Those opposite are in their coffin, the coffin is being lowered and they do not like it. I will teach them a little lesson. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr GALLOP: We on this side of the House have fought for the principle of one vote, one value for over 100 years. We have been pursuing this principle for 100 years. We have had to be accommodating, because for a large portion of that time whenever a Labor Government was elected to the lower House, the conservatives in the upper House lined up and vetoed legislation. They did it every time. Interestingly, in 1996 we thought that the light of good argument had finally descended upon the party rooms of the Liberal and National Parties, because they went into the election supporting one vote, one value, but after the election they broke their promise to the electors and did not introduce the legislation. We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
(1)-(2) I understand that the Government is the defendant and is duty bound to go into the court to argue the case on behalf of the Parliament of Western Australia which passed this legislation. What is going on here is simple. The Liberal Party has too many rural members and it cannot escape their grip and philosophy. The National Party is reliant upon non-metropolitan seats and is therefore vigorously defending its interests. They are the people who are interested in this issue. The public of Western Australia wants us to get on with the job and introduce a fair electoral system in which the people have a fair chance based on their individual interests and ideas so that when they vote they receive an equal say. What we are seeing here is the last gasp of a dying breed. Those opposite are in their coffin, the coffin is being lowered and they do not like it. I will teach them a little lesson. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr GALLOP: We on this side of the House have fought for the principle of one vote, one value for over 100 years. We have been pursuing this principle for 100 years. We have had to be accommodating, because for a large portion of that time whenever a Labor Government was elected to the lower House, the conservatives in the upper House lined up and vetoed legislation. They did it every time. Interestingly, in 1996 we thought that the light of good argument had finally descended upon the party rooms of the Liberal and National Parties, because they went into the election supporting one vote, one value, but after the election they broke their promise to the electors and did not introduce the legislation. We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr GALLOP: We on this side of the House have fought for the principle of one vote, one value for over 100 years. We have been pursuing this principle for 100 years. We have had to be accommodating, because for a large portion of that time whenever a Labor Government was elected to the lower House, the conservatives in the upper House lined up and vetoed legislation. They did it every time. Interestingly, in 1996 we thought that the light of good argument had finally descended upon the party rooms of the Liberal and National Parties, because they went into the election supporting one vote, one value, but after the election they broke their promise to the electors and did not introduce the legislation. We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr GALLOP: We on this side of the House have fought for the principle of one vote, one value for over 100 years. We have been pursuing this principle for 100 years. We have had to be accommodating, because for a large portion of that time whenever a Labor Government was elected to the lower House, the conservatives in the upper House lined up and vetoed legislation. They did it every time. Interestingly, in 1996 we thought that the light of good argument had finally descended upon the party rooms of the Liberal and National Parties, because they went into the election supporting one vote, one value, but after the election they broke their promise to the electors and did not introduce the legislation. We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
Dr GALLOP: We on this side of the House have fought for the principle of one vote, one value for over 100 years. We have been pursuing this principle for 100 years. We have had to be accommodating, because for a large portion of that time whenever a Labor Government was elected to the lower House, the conservatives in the upper House lined up and vetoed legislation. They did it every time. Interestingly, in 1996 we thought that the light of good argument had finally descended upon the party rooms of the Liberal and National Parties, because they went into the election supporting one vote, one value, but after the election they broke their promise to the electors and did not introduce the legislation. We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
We are seeing the last gasp of a dying breed and it is about time that the will of this Parliament, which has finally spoken in favour of a principle on this matter, is allowed to take its course and let us get on with the job of introducing a fair electoral system. Even this system that we have introduced does not incorporate all of our principles, because we have had to include other parties in the Legislative Council in the process. I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
I urge members opposite to finally come to grips with this issue. One vote, one value does not favour or disadvantage any particular party; it favours the electors of Western Australia, who are the people that matter. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: are the Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister moving to overturn one vote, one value? Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
Mr Barron-Sullivan: The judge was so concerned about the constitutional aspects that he has notified every other State and the Commonwealth. Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
Dr GALLOP: If this legislation passes and is established in law in Western Australia, will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reverse it? Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
Mr Barron-Sullivan: Input the next question. You are wasting time. Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
Dr GALLOP: The truth is, this is the last gasp of a dying breed. We have two political forces in Western Australia: on one side there is the party of principle, and that is the Labor Party; on the other side there is the party of blatant self-interest that wants ratepayers to pay for its ideological backwardness.
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.