❓ Question regarding the Premier's support for federal intervention in WA electoral laws based on international covenants, specifically 'one vote, one value'. The Premier's answer deflects, attacking the Liberal Party's stance on electoral reform and implying support for federal intervention.
AnsweredQoN 653Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Attorney General’s support on ABC radio this morning for a proposal by former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam that the federal Parliament should override Western Australian electoral laws to enact provisions of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (1) Does the Premier support the Attorney General’s call for the federal Parliament to override the State’s electoral laws? (2) Does the Premier support using international covenants, which have never come before this Parliament or been put to the Western Australian people in a referendum, to override state laws? Dr G.I. GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) Would it not be nice if the Liberal Party in Western Australia came to its senses and supported a fair electoral system for all Western Australians? The Liberal Party knows that one vote, one value is inevitable. It knows that where one vote, one value has been established - that is, in every other State and Territory in Australia - there is no turning back. There is no turning back once one vote, one value is established. The federal Government is not saying that this is a principle that needs to be undermined and that the laws of Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania etc need to be changed at a federal level. It is inevitable that it will be established everywhere. One group of people is left in Australia that still supports a different principle. The principle it supports is that some Western Australians should have more voting power than other Western Australians. That is the principle it supports. The former Opposition challenged the State’s electoral laws in the High Court - Mr C.J. Barnett: And lost. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Yes, we lost the case. It was an unfortunate loss. If the balance of judges on the High Court had not changed we might have won that case. Part of our argument was that the concept of representative democracy, as embodied in the best principles of the system around the world, require each of the jurisdictions to give everyone equal voting power. The international covenants that Australia has agreed to also support the principle. It would not bother the State Government if the federal Parliament, either through changing the Constitution or introducing a law backed by the external affairs power of the Commonwealth, moved to overturn an unfair system in Western Australia. Do members know why that is the case? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Cave in to the Commonwealth; is that not interesting! This is about the right of every Western Australian to have an equal vote. The real challenge lies with members on the other side of this Chamber. Their inability to face the inevitability of one vote, one value and the central principle that needs to be endorsed by this Parliament means that there will be debate across the nation on this matter. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: one vote, one value will come, but the pity is that he is not with us in making it happen. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
(1) Does the Premier support the Attorney General’s call for the federal Parliament to override the State’s electoral laws? (2) Does the Premier support using international covenants, which have never come before this Parliament or been put to the Western Australian people in a referendum, to override state laws? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) Would it not be nice if the Liberal Party in Western Australia came to its senses and supported a fair electoral system for all Western Australians? The Liberal Party knows that one vote, one value is inevitable. It knows that where one vote, one value has been established - that is, in every other State and Territory in Australia - there is no turning back. There is no turning back once one vote, one value is established. The federal Government is not saying that this is a principle that needs to be undermined and that the laws of Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania etc need to be changed at a federal level. It is inevitable that it will be established everywhere. One group of people is left in Australia that still supports a different principle. The principle it supports is that some Western Australians should have more voting power than other Western Australians. That is the principle it supports. The former Opposition challenged the State’s electoral laws in the High Court - Mr C.J. Barnett: And lost. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Yes, we lost the case. It was an unfortunate loss. If the balance of judges on the High Court had not changed we might have won that case. Part of our argument was that the concept of representative democracy, as embodied in the best principles of the system around the world, require each of the jurisdictions to give everyone equal voting power. The international covenants that Australia has agreed to also support the principle. It would not bother the State Government if the federal Parliament, either through changing the Constitution or introducing a law backed by the external affairs power of the Commonwealth, moved to overturn an unfair system in Western Australia. Do members know why that is the case? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Cave in to the Commonwealth; is that not interesting! This is about the right of every Western Australian to have an equal vote. The real challenge lies with members on the other side of this Chamber. Their inability to face the inevitability of one vote, one value and the central principle that needs to be endorsed by this Parliament means that there will be debate across the nation on this matter. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: one vote, one value will come, but the pity is that he is not with us in making it happen. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
(2) Does the Premier support using international covenants, which have never come before this Parliament or been put to the Western Australian people in a referendum, to override state laws? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) Would it not be nice if the Liberal Party in Western Australia came to its senses and supported a fair electoral system for all Western Australians? The Liberal Party knows that one vote, one value is inevitable. It knows that where one vote, one value has been established - that is, in every other State and Territory in Australia - there is no turning back. There is no turning back once one vote, one value is established. The federal Government is not saying that this is a principle that needs to be undermined and that the laws of Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania etc need to be changed at a federal level. It is inevitable that it will be established everywhere. One group of people is left in Australia that still supports a different principle. The principle it supports is that some Western Australians should have more voting power than other Western Australians. That is the principle it supports. The former Opposition challenged the State’s electoral laws in the High Court - Mr C.J. Barnett: And lost. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Yes, we lost the case. It was an unfortunate loss. If the balance of judges on the High Court had not changed we might have won that case. Part of our argument was that the concept of representative democracy, as embodied in the best principles of the system around the world, require each of the jurisdictions to give everyone equal voting power. The international covenants that Australia has agreed to also support the principle. It would not bother the State Government if the federal Parliament, either through changing the Constitution or introducing a law backed by the external affairs power of the Commonwealth, moved to overturn an unfair system in Western Australia. Do members know why that is the case? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Cave in to the Commonwealth; is that not interesting! This is about the right of every Western Australian to have an equal vote. The real challenge lies with members on the other side of this Chamber. Their inability to face the inevitability of one vote, one value and the central principle that needs to be endorsed by this Parliament means that there will be debate across the nation on this matter. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: one vote, one value will come, but the pity is that he is not with us in making it happen. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) Would it not be nice if the Liberal Party in Western Australia came to its senses and supported a fair electoral system for all Western Australians? The Liberal Party knows that one vote, one value is inevitable. It knows that where one vote, one value has been established - that is, in every other State and Territory in Australia - there is no turning back. There is no turning back once one vote, one value is established. The federal Government is not saying that this is a principle that needs to be undermined and that the laws of Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania etc need to be changed at a federal level. It is inevitable that it will be established everywhere. One group of people is left in Australia that still supports a different principle. The principle it supports is that some Western Australians should have more voting power than other Western Australians. That is the principle it supports. The former Opposition challenged the State’s electoral laws in the High Court - Mr C.J. Barnett: And lost. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Yes, we lost the case. It was an unfortunate loss. If the balance of judges on the High Court had not changed we might have won that case. Part of our argument was that the concept of representative democracy, as embodied in the best principles of the system around the world, require each of the jurisdictions to give everyone equal voting power. The international covenants that Australia has agreed to also support the principle. It would not bother the State Government if the federal Parliament, either through changing the Constitution or introducing a law backed by the external affairs power of the Commonwealth, moved to overturn an unfair system in Western Australia. Do members know why that is the case? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Cave in to the Commonwealth; is that not interesting! This is about the right of every Western Australian to have an equal vote. The real challenge lies with members on the other side of this Chamber. Their inability to face the inevitability of one vote, one value and the central principle that needs to be endorsed by this Parliament means that there will be debate across the nation on this matter. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: one vote, one value will come, but the pity is that he is not with us in making it happen. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
(1)-(2) Would it not be nice if the Liberal Party in Western Australia came to its senses and supported a fair electoral system for all Western Australians? The Liberal Party knows that one vote, one value is inevitable. It knows that where one vote, one value has been established - that is, in every other State and Territory in Australia - there is no turning back. There is no turning back once one vote, one value is established. The federal Government is not saying that this is a principle that needs to be undermined and that the laws of Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania etc need to be changed at a federal level. It is inevitable that it will be established everywhere. One group of people is left in Australia that still supports a different principle. The principle it supports is that some Western Australians should have more voting power than other Western Australians. That is the principle it supports. The former Opposition challenged the State’s electoral laws in the High Court - Mr C.J. Barnett: And lost. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Yes, we lost the case. It was an unfortunate loss. If the balance of judges on the High Court had not changed we might have won that case. Part of our argument was that the concept of representative democracy, as embodied in the best principles of the system around the world, require each of the jurisdictions to give everyone equal voting power. The international covenants that Australia has agreed to also support the principle. It would not bother the State Government if the federal Parliament, either through changing the Constitution or introducing a law backed by the external affairs power of the Commonwealth, moved to overturn an unfair system in Western Australia. Do members know why that is the case? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Cave in to the Commonwealth; is that not interesting! This is about the right of every Western Australian to have an equal vote. The real challenge lies with members on the other side of this Chamber. Their inability to face the inevitability of one vote, one value and the central principle that needs to be endorsed by this Parliament means that there will be debate across the nation on this matter. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: one vote, one value will come, but the pity is that he is not with us in making it happen. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Yes, we lost the case. It was an unfortunate loss. If the balance of judges on the High Court had not changed we might have won that case. Part of our argument was that the concept of representative democracy, as embodied in the best principles of the system around the world, require each of the jurisdictions to give everyone equal voting power. The international covenants that Australia has agreed to also support the principle. It would not bother the State Government if the federal Parliament, either through changing the Constitution or introducing a law backed by the external affairs power of the Commonwealth, moved to overturn an unfair system in Western Australia. Do members know why that is the case? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Cave in to the Commonwealth; is that not interesting! This is about the right of every Western Australian to have an equal vote. The real challenge lies with members on the other side of this Chamber. Their inability to face the inevitability of one vote, one value and the central principle that needs to be endorsed by this Parliament means that there will be debate across the nation on this matter. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: one vote, one value will come, but the pity is that he is not with us in making it happen. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Cave in to the Commonwealth; is that not interesting! This is about the right of every Western Australian to have an equal vote. The real challenge lies with members on the other side of this Chamber. Their inability to face the inevitability of one vote, one value and the central principle that needs to be endorsed by this Parliament means that there will be debate across the nation on this matter. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: one vote, one value will come, but the pity is that he is not with us in making it happen. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Cave in to the Commonwealth; is that not interesting! This is about the right of every Western Australian to have an equal vote. The real challenge lies with members on the other side of this Chamber. Their inability to face the inevitability of one vote, one value and the central principle that needs to be endorsed by this Parliament means that there will be debate across the nation on this matter. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: one vote, one value will come, but the pity is that he is not with us in making it happen. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
(1) Does the Premier support the Attorney General’s call for the federal Parliament to override the State’s electoral laws? (2) Does the Premier support using international covenants, which have never come before this Parliament or been put to the Western Australian people in a referendum, to override state laws? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) Would it not be nice if the Liberal Party in Western Australia came to its senses and supported a fair electoral system for all Western Australians? The Liberal Party knows that one vote, one value is inevitable. It knows that where one vote, one value has been established - that is, in every other State and Territory in Australia - there is no turning back. There is no turning back once one vote, one value is established. The federal Government is not saying that this is a principle that needs to be undermined and that the laws of Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania etc need to be changed at a federal level. It is inevitable that it will be established everywhere. One group of people is left in Australia that still supports a different principle. The principle it supports is that some Western Australians should have more voting power than other Western Australians. That is the principle it supports. The former Opposition challenged the State’s electoral laws in the High Court - Mr C.J. Barnett: And lost. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Yes, we lost the case. It was an unfortunate loss. If the balance of judges on the High Court had not changed we might have won that case. Part of our argument was that the concept of representative democracy, as embodied in the best principles of the system around the world, require each of the jurisdictions to give everyone equal voting power. The international covenants that Australia has agreed to also support the principle. It would not bother the State Government if the federal Parliament, either through changing the Constitution or introducing a law backed by the external affairs power of the Commonwealth, moved to overturn an unfair system in Western Australia. Do members know why that is the case? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Cave in to the Commonwealth; is that not interesting! This is about the right of every Western Australian to have an equal vote. The real challenge lies with members on the other side of this Chamber. Their inability to face the inevitability of one vote, one value and the central principle that needs to be endorsed by this Parliament means that there will be debate across the nation on this matter. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: one vote, one value will come, but the pity is that he is not with us in making it happen. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
(2) Does the Premier support using international covenants, which have never come before this Parliament or been put to the Western Australian people in a referendum, to override state laws? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) Would it not be nice if the Liberal Party in Western Australia came to its senses and supported a fair electoral system for all Western Australians? The Liberal Party knows that one vote, one value is inevitable. It knows that where one vote, one value has been established - that is, in every other State and Territory in Australia - there is no turning back. There is no turning back once one vote, one value is established. The federal Government is not saying that this is a principle that needs to be undermined and that the laws of Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania etc need to be changed at a federal level. It is inevitable that it will be established everywhere. One group of people is left in Australia that still supports a different principle. The principle it supports is that some Western Australians should have more voting power than other Western Australians. That is the principle it supports. The former Opposition challenged the State’s electoral laws in the High Court - Mr C.J. Barnett: And lost. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Yes, we lost the case. It was an unfortunate loss. If the balance of judges on the High Court had not changed we might have won that case. Part of our argument was that the concept of representative democracy, as embodied in the best principles of the system around the world, require each of the jurisdictions to give everyone equal voting power. The international covenants that Australia has agreed to also support the principle. It would not bother the State Government if the federal Parliament, either through changing the Constitution or introducing a law backed by the external affairs power of the Commonwealth, moved to overturn an unfair system in Western Australia. Do members know why that is the case? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Cave in to the Commonwealth; is that not interesting! This is about the right of every Western Australian to have an equal vote. The real challenge lies with members on the other side of this Chamber. Their inability to face the inevitability of one vote, one value and the central principle that needs to be endorsed by this Parliament means that there will be debate across the nation on this matter. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: one vote, one value will come, but the pity is that he is not with us in making it happen. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) Would it not be nice if the Liberal Party in Western Australia came to its senses and supported a fair electoral system for all Western Australians? The Liberal Party knows that one vote, one value is inevitable. It knows that where one vote, one value has been established - that is, in every other State and Territory in Australia - there is no turning back. There is no turning back once one vote, one value is established. The federal Government is not saying that this is a principle that needs to be undermined and that the laws of Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania etc need to be changed at a federal level. It is inevitable that it will be established everywhere. One group of people is left in Australia that still supports a different principle. The principle it supports is that some Western Australians should have more voting power than other Western Australians. That is the principle it supports. The former Opposition challenged the State’s electoral laws in the High Court - Mr C.J. Barnett: And lost. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Yes, we lost the case. It was an unfortunate loss. If the balance of judges on the High Court had not changed we might have won that case. Part of our argument was that the concept of representative democracy, as embodied in the best principles of the system around the world, require each of the jurisdictions to give everyone equal voting power. The international covenants that Australia has agreed to also support the principle. It would not bother the State Government if the federal Parliament, either through changing the Constitution or introducing a law backed by the external affairs power of the Commonwealth, moved to overturn an unfair system in Western Australia. Do members know why that is the case? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Cave in to the Commonwealth; is that not interesting! This is about the right of every Western Australian to have an equal vote. The real challenge lies with members on the other side of this Chamber. Their inability to face the inevitability of one vote, one value and the central principle that needs to be endorsed by this Parliament means that there will be debate across the nation on this matter. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: one vote, one value will come, but the pity is that he is not with us in making it happen. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
(1)-(2) Would it not be nice if the Liberal Party in Western Australia came to its senses and supported a fair electoral system for all Western Australians? The Liberal Party knows that one vote, one value is inevitable. It knows that where one vote, one value has been established - that is, in every other State and Territory in Australia - there is no turning back. There is no turning back once one vote, one value is established. The federal Government is not saying that this is a principle that needs to be undermined and that the laws of Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania etc need to be changed at a federal level. It is inevitable that it will be established everywhere. One group of people is left in Australia that still supports a different principle. The principle it supports is that some Western Australians should have more voting power than other Western Australians. That is the principle it supports. The former Opposition challenged the State’s electoral laws in the High Court - Mr C.J. Barnett: And lost. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Yes, we lost the case. It was an unfortunate loss. If the balance of judges on the High Court had not changed we might have won that case. Part of our argument was that the concept of representative democracy, as embodied in the best principles of the system around the world, require each of the jurisdictions to give everyone equal voting power. The international covenants that Australia has agreed to also support the principle. It would not bother the State Government if the federal Parliament, either through changing the Constitution or introducing a law backed by the external affairs power of the Commonwealth, moved to overturn an unfair system in Western Australia. Do members know why that is the case? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Cave in to the Commonwealth; is that not interesting! This is about the right of every Western Australian to have an equal vote. The real challenge lies with members on the other side of this Chamber. Their inability to face the inevitability of one vote, one value and the central principle that needs to be endorsed by this Parliament means that there will be debate across the nation on this matter. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: one vote, one value will come, but the pity is that he is not with us in making it happen. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Yes, we lost the case. It was an unfortunate loss. If the balance of judges on the High Court had not changed we might have won that case. Part of our argument was that the concept of representative democracy, as embodied in the best principles of the system around the world, require each of the jurisdictions to give everyone equal voting power. The international covenants that Australia has agreed to also support the principle. It would not bother the State Government if the federal Parliament, either through changing the Constitution or introducing a law backed by the external affairs power of the Commonwealth, moved to overturn an unfair system in Western Australia. Do members know why that is the case? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Cave in to the Commonwealth; is that not interesting! This is about the right of every Western Australian to have an equal vote. The real challenge lies with members on the other side of this Chamber. Their inability to face the inevitability of one vote, one value and the central principle that needs to be endorsed by this Parliament means that there will be debate across the nation on this matter. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: one vote, one value will come, but the pity is that he is not with us in making it happen. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Cave in to the Commonwealth; is that not interesting! This is about the right of every Western Australian to have an equal vote. The real challenge lies with members on the other side of this Chamber. Their inability to face the inevitability of one vote, one value and the central principle that needs to be endorsed by this Parliament means that there will be debate across the nation on this matter. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: one vote, one value will come, but the pity is that he is not with us in making it happen. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Cave in to the Commonwealth; is that not interesting! This is about the right of every Western Australian to have an equal vote. The real challenge lies with members on the other side of this Chamber. Their inability to face the inevitability of one vote, one value and the central principle that needs to be endorsed by this Parliament means that there will be debate across the nation on this matter. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: one vote, one value will come, but the pity is that he is not with us in making it happen. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse and Pilbara.
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.