❓ Premier Gallop responds to a question regarding electoral change legislation, focusing on the Opposition's involvement in a Supreme Court case and funding for legal representation. He argues against using taxpayer or ratepayer money for the Opposition's legal costs.
AnsweredQoN 766Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ELECTORAL CHANGE LEGISLATION, PREMIER’S COMMENTS
I refer to the Premier’s comments in this House yesterday about the Supreme Court case concerning electoral change legislation. What is the specific state Act that the Premier said is being attacked or argued against by the Opposition, and what is the action that the Premier said the Opposition is taking to attack that legislation? Dr GALLOP
I refer to the Premier’s comments in this House yesterday about the Supreme Court case concerning electoral change legislation. What is the specific state Act that the Premier said is being attacked or argued against by the Opposition, and what is the action that the Premier said the Opposition is taking to attack that legislation? Dr GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, well known as agent provocateur of the education system in the Bunbury-Mitchell region, is now trying to present himself as some sort of constitutional lawyer. He knows that as a result of that legislation passing through the Parliament of Western Australia, there was a requirement that the matter be referred to the Supreme Court for adjudication on a point of law. Mr Barron-Sullivan: Who made that decision? Dr GALLOP: That was made as a result of the debate in the upper House of Parliament. It resulted because the people who were involved in creating the legislation insisted that it happen. As I explained yesterday, the Legislative Council is using taxpayers’ money to present the yes and no case to the court. However, others who might have an interest in this matter also want to go into the court and argue the case. Those people should collect their own money to pay for that process as it is not appropriate for taxpayers or ratepayers to be funding the Opposition’s political argument. I am pleased to see that this is a position agreed upon by the Bunbury City Council. I note the comments of the chief executive of that council on this issue - The concern of the council was that in local government we shouldn’t be involving ourselves with party politics, and that these issues were not the prerogative of local government, and that’s why we’ll support the decision not to contribute and participate in this particular debate. This is the truth. The Liberal and National Parties and their friends who want to defend the current electoral system, which has been changed by the Parliament of Western Australia, want the ratepayers of Western Australia to pay their legal bills. On behalf of ratepayers and taxpayers in Western Australia, I say that that is not right. The member opposite can dig into his own pockets if he wants to fund that argument in the Supreme Court. The taxpayers’ responsibilities are being properly discharged. If the member wants to pay, he should not go to the ratepayers; he should dig into his own pockets.
Dr GALLOP replied: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, well known as agent provocateur of the education system in the Bunbury-Mitchell region, is now trying to present himself as some sort of constitutional lawyer. He knows that as a result of that legislation passing through the Parliament of Western Australia, there was a requirement that the matter be referred to the Supreme Court for adjudication on a point of law. Mr Barron-Sullivan: Who made that decision? Dr GALLOP: That was made as a result of the debate in the upper House of Parliament. It resulted because the people who were involved in creating the legislation insisted that it happen. As I explained yesterday, the Legislative Council is using taxpayers’ money to present the yes and no case to the court. However, others who might have an interest in this matter also want to go into the court and argue the case. Those people should collect their own money to pay for that process as it is not appropriate for taxpayers or ratepayers to be funding the Opposition’s political argument. I am pleased to see that this is a position agreed upon by the Bunbury City Council. I note the comments of the chief executive of that council on this issue - The concern of the council was that in local government we shouldn’t be involving ourselves with party politics, and that these issues were not the prerogative of local government, and that’s why we’ll support the decision not to contribute and participate in this particular debate. This is the truth. The Liberal and National Parties and their friends who want to defend the current electoral system, which has been changed by the Parliament of Western Australia, want the ratepayers of Western Australia to pay their legal bills. On behalf of ratepayers and taxpayers in Western Australia, I say that that is not right. The member opposite can dig into his own pockets if he wants to fund that argument in the Supreme Court. The taxpayers’ responsibilities are being properly discharged. If the member wants to pay, he should not go to the ratepayers; he should dig into his own pockets.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, well known as agent provocateur of the education system in the Bunbury-Mitchell region, is now trying to present himself as some sort of constitutional lawyer. He knows that as a result of that legislation passing through the Parliament of Western Australia, there was a requirement that the matter be referred to the Supreme Court for adjudication on a point of law. Mr Barron-Sullivan: Who made that decision? Dr GALLOP: That was made as a result of the debate in the upper House of Parliament. It resulted because the people who were involved in creating the legislation insisted that it happen. As I explained yesterday, the Legislative Council is using taxpayers’ money to present the yes and no case to the court. However, others who might have an interest in this matter also want to go into the court and argue the case. Those people should collect their own money to pay for that process as it is not appropriate for taxpayers or ratepayers to be funding the Opposition’s political argument. I am pleased to see that this is a position agreed upon by the Bunbury City Council. I note the comments of the chief executive of that council on this issue - The concern of the council was that in local government we shouldn’t be involving ourselves with party politics, and that these issues were not the prerogative of local government, and that’s why we’ll support the decision not to contribute and participate in this particular debate. This is the truth. The Liberal and National Parties and their friends who want to defend the current electoral system, which has been changed by the Parliament of Western Australia, want the ratepayers of Western Australia to pay their legal bills. On behalf of ratepayers and taxpayers in Western Australia, I say that that is not right. The member opposite can dig into his own pockets if he wants to fund that argument in the Supreme Court. The taxpayers’ responsibilities are being properly discharged. If the member wants to pay, he should not go to the ratepayers; he should dig into his own pockets.
Mr Barron-Sullivan: Who made that decision? Dr GALLOP: That was made as a result of the debate in the upper House of Parliament. It resulted because the people who were involved in creating the legislation insisted that it happen. As I explained yesterday, the Legislative Council is using taxpayers’ money to present the yes and no case to the court. However, others who might have an interest in this matter also want to go into the court and argue the case. Those people should collect their own money to pay for that process as it is not appropriate for taxpayers or ratepayers to be funding the Opposition’s political argument. I am pleased to see that this is a position agreed upon by the Bunbury City Council. I note the comments of the chief executive of that council on this issue - The concern of the council was that in local government we shouldn’t be involving ourselves with party politics, and that these issues were not the prerogative of local government, and that’s why we’ll support the decision not to contribute and participate in this particular debate. This is the truth. The Liberal and National Parties and their friends who want to defend the current electoral system, which has been changed by the Parliament of Western Australia, want the ratepayers of Western Australia to pay their legal bills. On behalf of ratepayers and taxpayers in Western Australia, I say that that is not right. The member opposite can dig into his own pockets if he wants to fund that argument in the Supreme Court. The taxpayers’ responsibilities are being properly discharged. If the member wants to pay, he should not go to the ratepayers; he should dig into his own pockets.
Dr GALLOP: That was made as a result of the debate in the upper House of Parliament. It resulted because the people who were involved in creating the legislation insisted that it happen. As I explained yesterday, the Legislative Council is using taxpayers’ money to present the yes and no case to the court. However, others who might have an interest in this matter also want to go into the court and argue the case. Those people should collect their own money to pay for that process as it is not appropriate for taxpayers or ratepayers to be funding the Opposition’s political argument. I am pleased to see that this is a position agreed upon by the Bunbury City Council. I note the comments of the chief executive of that council on this issue - The concern of the council was that in local government we shouldn’t be involving ourselves with party politics, and that these issues were not the prerogative of local government, and that’s why we’ll support the decision not to contribute and participate in this particular debate. This is the truth. The Liberal and National Parties and their friends who want to defend the current electoral system, which has been changed by the Parliament of Western Australia, want the ratepayers of Western Australia to pay their legal bills. On behalf of ratepayers and taxpayers in Western Australia, I say that that is not right. The member opposite can dig into his own pockets if he wants to fund that argument in the Supreme Court. The taxpayers’ responsibilities are being properly discharged. If the member wants to pay, he should not go to the ratepayers; he should dig into his own pockets.
I am pleased to see that this is a position agreed upon by the Bunbury City Council. I note the comments of the chief executive of that council on this issue - The concern of the council was that in local government we shouldn’t be involving ourselves with party politics, and that these issues were not the prerogative of local government, and that’s why we’ll support the decision not to contribute and participate in this particular debate. This is the truth. The Liberal and National Parties and their friends who want to defend the current electoral system, which has been changed by the Parliament of Western Australia, want the ratepayers of Western Australia to pay their legal bills. On behalf of ratepayers and taxpayers in Western Australia, I say that that is not right. The member opposite can dig into his own pockets if he wants to fund that argument in the Supreme Court. The taxpayers’ responsibilities are being properly discharged. If the member wants to pay, he should not go to the ratepayers; he should dig into his own pockets.
Dr GALLOP replied: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, well known as agent provocateur of the education system in the Bunbury-Mitchell region, is now trying to present himself as some sort of constitutional lawyer. He knows that as a result of that legislation passing through the Parliament of Western Australia, there was a requirement that the matter be referred to the Supreme Court for adjudication on a point of law. Mr Barron-Sullivan: Who made that decision? Dr GALLOP: That was made as a result of the debate in the upper House of Parliament. It resulted because the people who were involved in creating the legislation insisted that it happen. As I explained yesterday, the Legislative Council is using taxpayers’ money to present the yes and no case to the court. However, others who might have an interest in this matter also want to go into the court and argue the case. Those people should collect their own money to pay for that process as it is not appropriate for taxpayers or ratepayers to be funding the Opposition’s political argument. I am pleased to see that this is a position agreed upon by the Bunbury City Council. I note the comments of the chief executive of that council on this issue - The concern of the council was that in local government we shouldn’t be involving ourselves with party politics, and that these issues were not the prerogative of local government, and that’s why we’ll support the decision not to contribute and participate in this particular debate. This is the truth. The Liberal and National Parties and their friends who want to defend the current electoral system, which has been changed by the Parliament of Western Australia, want the ratepayers of Western Australia to pay their legal bills. On behalf of ratepayers and taxpayers in Western Australia, I say that that is not right. The member opposite can dig into his own pockets if he wants to fund that argument in the Supreme Court. The taxpayers’ responsibilities are being properly discharged. If the member wants to pay, he should not go to the ratepayers; he should dig into his own pockets.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, well known as agent provocateur of the education system in the Bunbury-Mitchell region, is now trying to present himself as some sort of constitutional lawyer. He knows that as a result of that legislation passing through the Parliament of Western Australia, there was a requirement that the matter be referred to the Supreme Court for adjudication on a point of law. Mr Barron-Sullivan: Who made that decision? Dr GALLOP: That was made as a result of the debate in the upper House of Parliament. It resulted because the people who were involved in creating the legislation insisted that it happen. As I explained yesterday, the Legislative Council is using taxpayers’ money to present the yes and no case to the court. However, others who might have an interest in this matter also want to go into the court and argue the case. Those people should collect their own money to pay for that process as it is not appropriate for taxpayers or ratepayers to be funding the Opposition’s political argument. I am pleased to see that this is a position agreed upon by the Bunbury City Council. I note the comments of the chief executive of that council on this issue - The concern of the council was that in local government we shouldn’t be involving ourselves with party politics, and that these issues were not the prerogative of local government, and that’s why we’ll support the decision not to contribute and participate in this particular debate. This is the truth. The Liberal and National Parties and their friends who want to defend the current electoral system, which has been changed by the Parliament of Western Australia, want the ratepayers of Western Australia to pay their legal bills. On behalf of ratepayers and taxpayers in Western Australia, I say that that is not right. The member opposite can dig into his own pockets if he wants to fund that argument in the Supreme Court. The taxpayers’ responsibilities are being properly discharged. If the member wants to pay, he should not go to the ratepayers; he should dig into his own pockets.
Mr Barron-Sullivan: Who made that decision? Dr GALLOP: That was made as a result of the debate in the upper House of Parliament. It resulted because the people who were involved in creating the legislation insisted that it happen. As I explained yesterday, the Legislative Council is using taxpayers’ money to present the yes and no case to the court. However, others who might have an interest in this matter also want to go into the court and argue the case. Those people should collect their own money to pay for that process as it is not appropriate for taxpayers or ratepayers to be funding the Opposition’s political argument. I am pleased to see that this is a position agreed upon by the Bunbury City Council. I note the comments of the chief executive of that council on this issue - The concern of the council was that in local government we shouldn’t be involving ourselves with party politics, and that these issues were not the prerogative of local government, and that’s why we’ll support the decision not to contribute and participate in this particular debate. This is the truth. The Liberal and National Parties and their friends who want to defend the current electoral system, which has been changed by the Parliament of Western Australia, want the ratepayers of Western Australia to pay their legal bills. On behalf of ratepayers and taxpayers in Western Australia, I say that that is not right. The member opposite can dig into his own pockets if he wants to fund that argument in the Supreme Court. The taxpayers’ responsibilities are being properly discharged. If the member wants to pay, he should not go to the ratepayers; he should dig into his own pockets.
Dr GALLOP: That was made as a result of the debate in the upper House of Parliament. It resulted because the people who were involved in creating the legislation insisted that it happen. As I explained yesterday, the Legislative Council is using taxpayers’ money to present the yes and no case to the court. However, others who might have an interest in this matter also want to go into the court and argue the case. Those people should collect their own money to pay for that process as it is not appropriate for taxpayers or ratepayers to be funding the Opposition’s political argument. I am pleased to see that this is a position agreed upon by the Bunbury City Council. I note the comments of the chief executive of that council on this issue - The concern of the council was that in local government we shouldn’t be involving ourselves with party politics, and that these issues were not the prerogative of local government, and that’s why we’ll support the decision not to contribute and participate in this particular debate. This is the truth. The Liberal and National Parties and their friends who want to defend the current electoral system, which has been changed by the Parliament of Western Australia, want the ratepayers of Western Australia to pay their legal bills. On behalf of ratepayers and taxpayers in Western Australia, I say that that is not right. The member opposite can dig into his own pockets if he wants to fund that argument in the Supreme Court. The taxpayers’ responsibilities are being properly discharged. If the member wants to pay, he should not go to the ratepayers; he should dig into his own pockets.
I am pleased to see that this is a position agreed upon by the Bunbury City Council. I note the comments of the chief executive of that council on this issue - The concern of the council was that in local government we shouldn’t be involving ourselves with party politics, and that these issues were not the prerogative of local government, and that’s why we’ll support the decision not to contribute and participate in this particular debate. This is the truth. The Liberal and National Parties and their friends who want to defend the current electoral system, which has been changed by the Parliament of Western Australia, want the ratepayers of Western Australia to pay their legal bills. On behalf of ratepayers and taxpayers in Western Australia, I say that that is not right. The member opposite can dig into his own pockets if he wants to fund that argument in the Supreme Court. The taxpayers’ responsibilities are being properly discharged. If the member wants to pay, he should not go to the ratepayers; he should dig into his own pockets.
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.