❓ Mr Trenorden questions Premier Gallop on the consistency of retaining vote weighting in the Mining and Pastoral Region with the Labor Party's 'one vote, one value' policy. Premier Gallop defends the compromise as necessary for representation of remote areas and to pass legislation.
AnsweredQoN 10Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I congratulate the Premier on winning the election and the Australian Labor Party on its re-election to government. It was a substantial result. I welcome new members to the house and wish them well for the next four years. In the Kalgoorlie Miner on 17 February 2005, the Premier justified the retention of vote weighting in the Mining and Pastoral Region on the grounds that - Labor will guarantee the retention of the five seats to prevent a leeching of representation to the south west area of the state where population was growing rapidly . . . Will he now concede that his argument for the retention of vote weighting in the Mining and Pastoral Region is in fact support for vote weighting in general and in direct conflict with his policy of one vote, one value? Dr G.I. GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
When the government introduced legislation on this issue a number of years ago, it made allowance for the remote areas of Western Australia. That was done by way of a particular formula, which formula would have produced just over four seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region of Western Australia. During the election campaign we decided to put forward the notion that we could have five seats. This allowance for rural and remote Western Australia, which is similar to the allowance in the Queensland legislation, is a compromise of the principle that is in the interests of Western Australia. We accepted that in the previous legislation and we have made a very small change in the legislation introduced by the Attorney General today to increase that allowance to five seats. We on this side of the house understand that to get legislation through the Parliament, compromises have to be made, and we will do that. We have been in government in Western Australia on many occasions throughout the twentieth century and now early in the twenty-first century, but we have never had the numbers in the Legislative Council and we have always had to compromise on these issues. The change from the formula that we had proposed prior to the election to the formula that we have now proposed is very small when one considers the improvements that will flow from the introduction of one vote, one value. It will be a major step forward for Western Australia. I also made the point that the current distribution and the way it is structured will mean that seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region will drift into the south west. That is a consequence of the current system. Another consequence of the current system is that seats like Geraldton and Bunbury are very small in geographic size - extremely small. The legislation we have put forward represents a major step forward. We have agreed that an allowance needs to be made for remote areas of Western Australia. That was included in our 2002 legislation; it is also in our legislation that was put - Mr M.J. Birney : No, it was not. It was different, and you know it. Dr G.I. GALLOP : I will explain the difference. Does the Leader of the Opposition know what the difference is? At best, one seat. That is the difference. In the sum total of the improvements we are making for the representation of the people of Western Australia, we believe that that is an acceptable allowance. That legislation is good legislation. It will go through this chamber, it will go into the Legislative Council, and let us hope that on this occasion we get legislation that better reflects the needs of the people of Western Australia than we ever had in the twentieth century. It will mean that wherever a person lives in Western Australia, he or she will have an equal say in the election of this Parliament.
In the Kalgoorlie Miner on 17 February 2005, the Premier justified the retention of vote weighting in the Mining and Pastoral Region on the grounds that - Labor will guarantee the retention of the five seats to prevent a leeching of representation to the south west area of the state where population was growing rapidly . . . Will he now concede that his argument for the retention of vote weighting in the Mining and Pastoral Region is in fact support for vote weighting in general and in direct conflict with his policy of one vote, one value? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: When the government introduced legislation on this issue a number of years ago, it made allowance for the remote areas of Western Australia. That was done by way of a particular formula, which formula would have produced just over four seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region of Western Australia. During the election campaign we decided to put forward the notion that we could have five seats. This allowance for rural and remote Western Australia, which is similar to the allowance in the Queensland legislation, is a compromise of the principle that is in the interests of Western Australia. We accepted that in the previous legislation and we have made a very small change in the legislation introduced by the Attorney General today to increase that allowance to five seats. We on this side of the house understand that to get legislation through the Parliament, compromises have to be made, and we will do that. We have been in government in Western Australia on many occasions throughout the twentieth century and now early in the twenty-first century, but we have never had the numbers in the Legislative Council and we have always had to compromise on these issues. The change from the formula that we had proposed prior to the election to the formula that we have now proposed is very small when one considers the improvements that will flow from the introduction of one vote, one value. It will be a major step forward for Western Australia. I also made the point that the current distribution and the way it is structured will mean that seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region will drift into the south west. That is a consequence of the current system. Another consequence of the current system is that seats like Geraldton and Bunbury are very small in geographic size - extremely small. The legislation we have put forward represents a major step forward. We have agreed that an allowance needs to be made for remote areas of Western Australia. That was included in our 2002 legislation; it is also in our legislation that was put - Mr M.J. Birney : No, it was not. It was different, and you know it. Dr G.I. GALLOP : I will explain the difference. Does the Leader of the Opposition know what the difference is? At best, one seat. That is the difference. In the sum total of the improvements we are making for the representation of the people of Western Australia, we believe that that is an acceptable allowance. That legislation is good legislation. It will go through this chamber, it will go into the Legislative Council, and let us hope that on this occasion we get legislation that better reflects the needs of the people of Western Australia than we ever had in the twentieth century. It will mean that wherever a person lives in Western Australia, he or she will have an equal say in the election of this Parliament.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: When the government introduced legislation on this issue a number of years ago, it made allowance for the remote areas of Western Australia. That was done by way of a particular formula, which formula would have produced just over four seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region of Western Australia. During the election campaign we decided to put forward the notion that we could have five seats. This allowance for rural and remote Western Australia, which is similar to the allowance in the Queensland legislation, is a compromise of the principle that is in the interests of Western Australia. We accepted that in the previous legislation and we have made a very small change in the legislation introduced by the Attorney General today to increase that allowance to five seats. We on this side of the house understand that to get legislation through the Parliament, compromises have to be made, and we will do that. We have been in government in Western Australia on many occasions throughout the twentieth century and now early in the twenty-first century, but we have never had the numbers in the Legislative Council and we have always had to compromise on these issues. The change from the formula that we had proposed prior to the election to the formula that we have now proposed is very small when one considers the improvements that will flow from the introduction of one vote, one value. It will be a major step forward for Western Australia. I also made the point that the current distribution and the way it is structured will mean that seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region will drift into the south west. That is a consequence of the current system. Another consequence of the current system is that seats like Geraldton and Bunbury are very small in geographic size - extremely small. The legislation we have put forward represents a major step forward. We have agreed that an allowance needs to be made for remote areas of Western Australia. That was included in our 2002 legislation; it is also in our legislation that was put - Mr M.J. Birney : No, it was not. It was different, and you know it. Dr G.I. GALLOP : I will explain the difference. Does the Leader of the Opposition know what the difference is? At best, one seat. That is the difference. In the sum total of the improvements we are making for the representation of the people of Western Australia, we believe that that is an acceptable allowance. That legislation is good legislation. It will go through this chamber, it will go into the Legislative Council, and let us hope that on this occasion we get legislation that better reflects the needs of the people of Western Australia than we ever had in the twentieth century. It will mean that wherever a person lives in Western Australia, he or she will have an equal say in the election of this Parliament.
When the government introduced legislation on this issue a number of years ago, it made allowance for the remote areas of Western Australia. That was done by way of a particular formula, which formula would have produced just over four seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region of Western Australia. During the election campaign we decided to put forward the notion that we could have five seats. This allowance for rural and remote Western Australia, which is similar to the allowance in the Queensland legislation, is a compromise of the principle that is in the interests of Western Australia. We accepted that in the previous legislation and we have made a very small change in the legislation introduced by the Attorney General today to increase that allowance to five seats. We on this side of the house understand that to get legislation through the Parliament, compromises have to be made, and we will do that. We have been in government in Western Australia on many occasions throughout the twentieth century and now early in the twenty-first century, but we have never had the numbers in the Legislative Council and we have always had to compromise on these issues. The change from the formula that we had proposed prior to the election to the formula that we have now proposed is very small when one considers the improvements that will flow from the introduction of one vote, one value. It will be a major step forward for Western Australia. I also made the point that the current distribution and the way it is structured will mean that seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region will drift into the south west. That is a consequence of the current system. Another consequence of the current system is that seats like Geraldton and Bunbury are very small in geographic size - extremely small. The legislation we have put forward represents a major step forward. We have agreed that an allowance needs to be made for remote areas of Western Australia. That was included in our 2002 legislation; it is also in our legislation that was put - Mr M.J. Birney : No, it was not. It was different, and you know it. Dr G.I. GALLOP : I will explain the difference. Does the Leader of the Opposition know what the difference is? At best, one seat. That is the difference. In the sum total of the improvements we are making for the representation of the people of Western Australia, we believe that that is an acceptable allowance. That legislation is good legislation. It will go through this chamber, it will go into the Legislative Council, and let us hope that on this occasion we get legislation that better reflects the needs of the people of Western Australia than we ever had in the twentieth century. It will mean that wherever a person lives in Western Australia, he or she will have an equal say in the election of this Parliament.
I also made the point that the current distribution and the way it is structured will mean that seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region will drift into the south west. That is a consequence of the current system. Another consequence of the current system is that seats like Geraldton and Bunbury are very small in geographic size - extremely small. The legislation we have put forward represents a major step forward. We have agreed that an allowance needs to be made for remote areas of Western Australia. That was included in our 2002 legislation; it is also in our legislation that was put - Mr M.J. Birney : No, it was not. It was different, and you know it. Dr G.I. GALLOP : I will explain the difference. Does the Leader of the Opposition know what the difference is? At best, one seat. That is the difference. In the sum total of the improvements we are making for the representation of the people of Western Australia, we believe that that is an acceptable allowance. That legislation is good legislation. It will go through this chamber, it will go into the Legislative Council, and let us hope that on this occasion we get legislation that better reflects the needs of the people of Western Australia than we ever had in the twentieth century. It will mean that wherever a person lives in Western Australia, he or she will have an equal say in the election of this Parliament.
Mr M.J. Birney : No, it was not. It was different, and you know it. Dr G.I. GALLOP : I will explain the difference. Does the Leader of the Opposition know what the difference is? At best, one seat. That is the difference. In the sum total of the improvements we are making for the representation of the people of Western Australia, we believe that that is an acceptable allowance. That legislation is good legislation. It will go through this chamber, it will go into the Legislative Council, and let us hope that on this occasion we get legislation that better reflects the needs of the people of Western Australia than we ever had in the twentieth century. It will mean that wherever a person lives in Western Australia, he or she will have an equal say in the election of this Parliament.
Dr G.I. GALLOP : I will explain the difference. Does the Leader of the Opposition know what the difference is? At best, one seat. That is the difference. In the sum total of the improvements we are making for the representation of the people of Western Australia, we believe that that is an acceptable allowance. That legislation is good legislation. It will go through this chamber, it will go into the Legislative Council, and let us hope that on this occasion we get legislation that better reflects the needs of the people of Western Australia than we ever had in the twentieth century. It will mean that wherever a person lives in Western Australia, he or she will have an equal say in the election of this Parliament.
In the Kalgoorlie Miner on 17 February 2005, the Premier justified the retention of vote weighting in the Mining and Pastoral Region on the grounds that - Labor will guarantee the retention of the five seats to prevent a leeching of representation to the south west area of the state where population was growing rapidly . . . Will he now concede that his argument for the retention of vote weighting in the Mining and Pastoral Region is in fact support for vote weighting in general and in direct conflict with his policy of one vote, one value? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: When the government introduced legislation on this issue a number of years ago, it made allowance for the remote areas of Western Australia. That was done by way of a particular formula, which formula would have produced just over four seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region of Western Australia. During the election campaign we decided to put forward the notion that we could have five seats. This allowance for rural and remote Western Australia, which is similar to the allowance in the Queensland legislation, is a compromise of the principle that is in the interests of Western Australia. We accepted that in the previous legislation and we have made a very small change in the legislation introduced by the Attorney General today to increase that allowance to five seats. We on this side of the house understand that to get legislation through the Parliament, compromises have to be made, and we will do that. We have been in government in Western Australia on many occasions throughout the twentieth century and now early in the twenty-first century, but we have never had the numbers in the Legislative Council and we have always had to compromise on these issues. The change from the formula that we had proposed prior to the election to the formula that we have now proposed is very small when one considers the improvements that will flow from the introduction of one vote, one value. It will be a major step forward for Western Australia. I also made the point that the current distribution and the way it is structured will mean that seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region will drift into the south west. That is a consequence of the current system. Another consequence of the current system is that seats like Geraldton and Bunbury are very small in geographic size - extremely small. The legislation we have put forward represents a major step forward. We have agreed that an allowance needs to be made for remote areas of Western Australia. That was included in our 2002 legislation; it is also in our legislation that was put - Mr M.J. Birney : No, it was not. It was different, and you know it. Dr G.I. GALLOP : I will explain the difference. Does the Leader of the Opposition know what the difference is? At best, one seat. That is the difference. In the sum total of the improvements we are making for the representation of the people of Western Australia, we believe that that is an acceptable allowance. That legislation is good legislation. It will go through this chamber, it will go into the Legislative Council, and let us hope that on this occasion we get legislation that better reflects the needs of the people of Western Australia than we ever had in the twentieth century. It will mean that wherever a person lives in Western Australia, he or she will have an equal say in the election of this Parliament.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: When the government introduced legislation on this issue a number of years ago, it made allowance for the remote areas of Western Australia. That was done by way of a particular formula, which formula would have produced just over four seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region of Western Australia. During the election campaign we decided to put forward the notion that we could have five seats. This allowance for rural and remote Western Australia, which is similar to the allowance in the Queensland legislation, is a compromise of the principle that is in the interests of Western Australia. We accepted that in the previous legislation and we have made a very small change in the legislation introduced by the Attorney General today to increase that allowance to five seats. We on this side of the house understand that to get legislation through the Parliament, compromises have to be made, and we will do that. We have been in government in Western Australia on many occasions throughout the twentieth century and now early in the twenty-first century, but we have never had the numbers in the Legislative Council and we have always had to compromise on these issues. The change from the formula that we had proposed prior to the election to the formula that we have now proposed is very small when one considers the improvements that will flow from the introduction of one vote, one value. It will be a major step forward for Western Australia. I also made the point that the current distribution and the way it is structured will mean that seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region will drift into the south west. That is a consequence of the current system. Another consequence of the current system is that seats like Geraldton and Bunbury are very small in geographic size - extremely small. The legislation we have put forward represents a major step forward. We have agreed that an allowance needs to be made for remote areas of Western Australia. That was included in our 2002 legislation; it is also in our legislation that was put - Mr M.J. Birney : No, it was not. It was different, and you know it. Dr G.I. GALLOP : I will explain the difference. Does the Leader of the Opposition know what the difference is? At best, one seat. That is the difference. In the sum total of the improvements we are making for the representation of the people of Western Australia, we believe that that is an acceptable allowance. That legislation is good legislation. It will go through this chamber, it will go into the Legislative Council, and let us hope that on this occasion we get legislation that better reflects the needs of the people of Western Australia than we ever had in the twentieth century. It will mean that wherever a person lives in Western Australia, he or she will have an equal say in the election of this Parliament.
When the government introduced legislation on this issue a number of years ago, it made allowance for the remote areas of Western Australia. That was done by way of a particular formula, which formula would have produced just over four seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region of Western Australia. During the election campaign we decided to put forward the notion that we could have five seats. This allowance for rural and remote Western Australia, which is similar to the allowance in the Queensland legislation, is a compromise of the principle that is in the interests of Western Australia. We accepted that in the previous legislation and we have made a very small change in the legislation introduced by the Attorney General today to increase that allowance to five seats. We on this side of the house understand that to get legislation through the Parliament, compromises have to be made, and we will do that. We have been in government in Western Australia on many occasions throughout the twentieth century and now early in the twenty-first century, but we have never had the numbers in the Legislative Council and we have always had to compromise on these issues. The change from the formula that we had proposed prior to the election to the formula that we have now proposed is very small when one considers the improvements that will flow from the introduction of one vote, one value. It will be a major step forward for Western Australia. I also made the point that the current distribution and the way it is structured will mean that seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region will drift into the south west. That is a consequence of the current system. Another consequence of the current system is that seats like Geraldton and Bunbury are very small in geographic size - extremely small. The legislation we have put forward represents a major step forward. We have agreed that an allowance needs to be made for remote areas of Western Australia. That was included in our 2002 legislation; it is also in our legislation that was put - Mr M.J. Birney : No, it was not. It was different, and you know it. Dr G.I. GALLOP : I will explain the difference. Does the Leader of the Opposition know what the difference is? At best, one seat. That is the difference. In the sum total of the improvements we are making for the representation of the people of Western Australia, we believe that that is an acceptable allowance. That legislation is good legislation. It will go through this chamber, it will go into the Legislative Council, and let us hope that on this occasion we get legislation that better reflects the needs of the people of Western Australia than we ever had in the twentieth century. It will mean that wherever a person lives in Western Australia, he or she will have an equal say in the election of this Parliament.
I also made the point that the current distribution and the way it is structured will mean that seats in the Mining and Pastoral Region will drift into the south west. That is a consequence of the current system. Another consequence of the current system is that seats like Geraldton and Bunbury are very small in geographic size - extremely small. The legislation we have put forward represents a major step forward. We have agreed that an allowance needs to be made for remote areas of Western Australia. That was included in our 2002 legislation; it is also in our legislation that was put - Mr M.J. Birney : No, it was not. It was different, and you know it. Dr G.I. GALLOP : I will explain the difference. Does the Leader of the Opposition know what the difference is? At best, one seat. That is the difference. In the sum total of the improvements we are making for the representation of the people of Western Australia, we believe that that is an acceptable allowance. That legislation is good legislation. It will go through this chamber, it will go into the Legislative Council, and let us hope that on this occasion we get legislation that better reflects the needs of the people of Western Australia than we ever had in the twentieth century. It will mean that wherever a person lives in Western Australia, he or she will have an equal say in the election of this Parliament.
Mr M.J. Birney : No, it was not. It was different, and you know it. Dr G.I. GALLOP : I will explain the difference. Does the Leader of the Opposition know what the difference is? At best, one seat. That is the difference. In the sum total of the improvements we are making for the representation of the people of Western Australia, we believe that that is an acceptable allowance. That legislation is good legislation. It will go through this chamber, it will go into the Legislative Council, and let us hope that on this occasion we get legislation that better reflects the needs of the people of Western Australia than we ever had in the twentieth century. It will mean that wherever a person lives in Western Australia, he or she will have an equal say in the election of this Parliament.
Dr G.I. GALLOP : I will explain the difference. Does the Leader of the Opposition know what the difference is? At best, one seat. That is the difference. In the sum total of the improvements we are making for the representation of the people of Western Australia, we believe that that is an acceptable allowance. That legislation is good legislation. It will go through this chamber, it will go into the Legislative Council, and let us hope that on this occasion we get legislation that better reflects the needs of the people of Western Australia than we ever had in the twentieth century. It will mean that wherever a person lives in Western Australia, he or she will have an equal say in the election of this Parliament.
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.