❓ Question regarding the Premier's decision to give the President of the Legislative Council a deliberative vote, questioning why the Speaker isn't afforded the same and how the President's role can avoid politicisation. The Premier defends the decision as correcting historical electoral rorting.
AnsweredQoN 289Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Premier’s assault on our constitutional and parliamentary system by giving the President of the upper House a deliberative vote and to his Government’s explanation that this measure could be supported because it gave electors in the President’s electorate proper and fair representation in the Parliament. (1) If it is so important to give the President a deliberative vote, ostensibly so that he can represent his electorate in Parliament, why is the Premier not doing the same thing for the Speaker of this House for exactly the same reason? (2) As Labor politicians are bound to their caucus decisions, how can the Premier ensure that the President’s role will not be politicised unless he guarantees today that Labor Party rules and procedures will be changed so that the President can vote against the party position by crossing the floor with total impunity? Dr G.I. GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) It is very difficult to know what to say when the word “assault” is used concerning a proposal that gives an elected member of Parliament the right to vote in the Parliament. That is an extraordinary use of the English language. On the subject of the English language, or variations on that theme, I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has entered into a debate in New South Wales about the use of the f-word. I hope he will consult with his colleague, the member for Kingsley, who was revealed in the royal commission in Wanneroo to be a quite frequent user of that particular language. Mr C.J. Barnett: How low can you get! Dr G.I. GALLOP: How stupid can the Leader of the Opposition get? That is what it is all about. This is an Opposition with nowhere to go on one vote, one value. They know it is right, they know it is the principled thing to do, they know it is fair for all electors, but they cannot get themselves to vote for that fundamental principle. We have support in the Parliament for our electoral reform legislation and we will make sure - Point of Order Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: No evidence whatsoever was presented at the royal commission to back up what was said against the member for Kingsley, and the Premier is misleading the Parliament on that point. He should withdraw. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
(1) If it is so important to give the President a deliberative vote, ostensibly so that he can represent his electorate in Parliament, why is the Premier not doing the same thing for the Speaker of this House for exactly the same reason? (2) As Labor politicians are bound to their caucus decisions, how can the Premier ensure that the President’s role will not be politicised unless he guarantees today that Labor Party rules and procedures will be changed so that the President can vote against the party position by crossing the floor with total impunity? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) It is very difficult to know what to say when the word “assault” is used concerning a proposal that gives an elected member of Parliament the right to vote in the Parliament. That is an extraordinary use of the English language. On the subject of the English language, or variations on that theme, I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has entered into a debate in New South Wales about the use of the f-word. I hope he will consult with his colleague, the member for Kingsley, who was revealed in the royal commission in Wanneroo to be a quite frequent user of that particular language. Mr C.J. Barnett: How low can you get! Dr G.I. GALLOP: How stupid can the Leader of the Opposition get? That is what it is all about. This is an Opposition with nowhere to go on one vote, one value. They know it is right, they know it is the principled thing to do, they know it is fair for all electors, but they cannot get themselves to vote for that fundamental principle. We have support in the Parliament for our electoral reform legislation and we will make sure - Point of Order Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: No evidence whatsoever was presented at the royal commission to back up what was said against the member for Kingsley, and the Premier is misleading the Parliament on that point. He should withdraw. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
(2) As Labor politicians are bound to their caucus decisions, how can the Premier ensure that the President’s role will not be politicised unless he guarantees today that Labor Party rules and procedures will be changed so that the President can vote against the party position by crossing the floor with total impunity? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) It is very difficult to know what to say when the word “assault” is used concerning a proposal that gives an elected member of Parliament the right to vote in the Parliament. That is an extraordinary use of the English language. On the subject of the English language, or variations on that theme, I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has entered into a debate in New South Wales about the use of the f-word. I hope he will consult with his colleague, the member for Kingsley, who was revealed in the royal commission in Wanneroo to be a quite frequent user of that particular language. Mr C.J. Barnett: How low can you get! Dr G.I. GALLOP: How stupid can the Leader of the Opposition get? That is what it is all about. This is an Opposition with nowhere to go on one vote, one value. They know it is right, they know it is the principled thing to do, they know it is fair for all electors, but they cannot get themselves to vote for that fundamental principle. We have support in the Parliament for our electoral reform legislation and we will make sure - Point of Order Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: No evidence whatsoever was presented at the royal commission to back up what was said against the member for Kingsley, and the Premier is misleading the Parliament on that point. He should withdraw. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) It is very difficult to know what to say when the word “assault” is used concerning a proposal that gives an elected member of Parliament the right to vote in the Parliament. That is an extraordinary use of the English language. On the subject of the English language, or variations on that theme, I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has entered into a debate in New South Wales about the use of the f-word. I hope he will consult with his colleague, the member for Kingsley, who was revealed in the royal commission in Wanneroo to be a quite frequent user of that particular language. Mr C.J. Barnett: How low can you get! Dr G.I. GALLOP: How stupid can the Leader of the Opposition get? That is what it is all about. This is an Opposition with nowhere to go on one vote, one value. They know it is right, they know it is the principled thing to do, they know it is fair for all electors, but they cannot get themselves to vote for that fundamental principle. We have support in the Parliament for our electoral reform legislation and we will make sure - Point of Order Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: No evidence whatsoever was presented at the royal commission to back up what was said against the member for Kingsley, and the Premier is misleading the Parliament on that point. He should withdraw. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
(1)-(2) It is very difficult to know what to say when the word “assault” is used concerning a proposal that gives an elected member of Parliament the right to vote in the Parliament. That is an extraordinary use of the English language. On the subject of the English language, or variations on that theme, I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has entered into a debate in New South Wales about the use of the f-word. I hope he will consult with his colleague, the member for Kingsley, who was revealed in the royal commission in Wanneroo to be a quite frequent user of that particular language. Mr C.J. Barnett: How low can you get! Dr G.I. GALLOP: How stupid can the Leader of the Opposition get? That is what it is all about. This is an Opposition with nowhere to go on one vote, one value. They know it is right, they know it is the principled thing to do, they know it is fair for all electors, but they cannot get themselves to vote for that fundamental principle. We have support in the Parliament for our electoral reform legislation and we will make sure - Point of Order Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: No evidence whatsoever was presented at the royal commission to back up what was said against the member for Kingsley, and the Premier is misleading the Parliament on that point. He should withdraw. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Mr C.J. Barnett: How low can you get! Dr G.I. GALLOP: How stupid can the Leader of the Opposition get? That is what it is all about. This is an Opposition with nowhere to go on one vote, one value. They know it is right, they know it is the principled thing to do, they know it is fair for all electors, but they cannot get themselves to vote for that fundamental principle. We have support in the Parliament for our electoral reform legislation and we will make sure - Point of Order Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: No evidence whatsoever was presented at the royal commission to back up what was said against the member for Kingsley, and the Premier is misleading the Parliament on that point. He should withdraw. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: How stupid can the Leader of the Opposition get? That is what it is all about. This is an Opposition with nowhere to go on one vote, one value. They know it is right, they know it is the principled thing to do, they know it is fair for all electors, but they cannot get themselves to vote for that fundamental principle. We have support in the Parliament for our electoral reform legislation and we will make sure - Point of Order Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: No evidence whatsoever was presented at the royal commission to back up what was said against the member for Kingsley, and the Premier is misleading the Parliament on that point. He should withdraw. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
This is an Opposition with nowhere to go on one vote, one value. They know it is right, they know it is the principled thing to do, they know it is fair for all electors, but they cannot get themselves to vote for that fundamental principle. We have support in the Parliament for our electoral reform legislation and we will make sure - Point of Order Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: No evidence whatsoever was presented at the royal commission to back up what was said against the member for Kingsley, and the Premier is misleading the Parliament on that point. He should withdraw. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
(1) If it is so important to give the President a deliberative vote, ostensibly so that he can represent his electorate in Parliament, why is the Premier not doing the same thing for the Speaker of this House for exactly the same reason? (2) As Labor politicians are bound to their caucus decisions, how can the Premier ensure that the President’s role will not be politicised unless he guarantees today that Labor Party rules and procedures will be changed so that the President can vote against the party position by crossing the floor with total impunity? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) It is very difficult to know what to say when the word “assault” is used concerning a proposal that gives an elected member of Parliament the right to vote in the Parliament. That is an extraordinary use of the English language. On the subject of the English language, or variations on that theme, I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has entered into a debate in New South Wales about the use of the f-word. I hope he will consult with his colleague, the member for Kingsley, who was revealed in the royal commission in Wanneroo to be a quite frequent user of that particular language. Mr C.J. Barnett: How low can you get! Dr G.I. GALLOP: How stupid can the Leader of the Opposition get? That is what it is all about. This is an Opposition with nowhere to go on one vote, one value. They know it is right, they know it is the principled thing to do, they know it is fair for all electors, but they cannot get themselves to vote for that fundamental principle. We have support in the Parliament for our electoral reform legislation and we will make sure - Point of Order Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: No evidence whatsoever was presented at the royal commission to back up what was said against the member for Kingsley, and the Premier is misleading the Parliament on that point. He should withdraw. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
(2) As Labor politicians are bound to their caucus decisions, how can the Premier ensure that the President’s role will not be politicised unless he guarantees today that Labor Party rules and procedures will be changed so that the President can vote against the party position by crossing the floor with total impunity? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) It is very difficult to know what to say when the word “assault” is used concerning a proposal that gives an elected member of Parliament the right to vote in the Parliament. That is an extraordinary use of the English language. On the subject of the English language, or variations on that theme, I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has entered into a debate in New South Wales about the use of the f-word. I hope he will consult with his colleague, the member for Kingsley, who was revealed in the royal commission in Wanneroo to be a quite frequent user of that particular language. Mr C.J. Barnett: How low can you get! Dr G.I. GALLOP: How stupid can the Leader of the Opposition get? That is what it is all about. This is an Opposition with nowhere to go on one vote, one value. They know it is right, they know it is the principled thing to do, they know it is fair for all electors, but they cannot get themselves to vote for that fundamental principle. We have support in the Parliament for our electoral reform legislation and we will make sure - Point of Order Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: No evidence whatsoever was presented at the royal commission to back up what was said against the member for Kingsley, and the Premier is misleading the Parliament on that point. He should withdraw. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) It is very difficult to know what to say when the word “assault” is used concerning a proposal that gives an elected member of Parliament the right to vote in the Parliament. That is an extraordinary use of the English language. On the subject of the English language, or variations on that theme, I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has entered into a debate in New South Wales about the use of the f-word. I hope he will consult with his colleague, the member for Kingsley, who was revealed in the royal commission in Wanneroo to be a quite frequent user of that particular language. Mr C.J. Barnett: How low can you get! Dr G.I. GALLOP: How stupid can the Leader of the Opposition get? That is what it is all about. This is an Opposition with nowhere to go on one vote, one value. They know it is right, they know it is the principled thing to do, they know it is fair for all electors, but they cannot get themselves to vote for that fundamental principle. We have support in the Parliament for our electoral reform legislation and we will make sure - Point of Order Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: No evidence whatsoever was presented at the royal commission to back up what was said against the member for Kingsley, and the Premier is misleading the Parliament on that point. He should withdraw. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
(1)-(2) It is very difficult to know what to say when the word “assault” is used concerning a proposal that gives an elected member of Parliament the right to vote in the Parliament. That is an extraordinary use of the English language. On the subject of the English language, or variations on that theme, I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has entered into a debate in New South Wales about the use of the f-word. I hope he will consult with his colleague, the member for Kingsley, who was revealed in the royal commission in Wanneroo to be a quite frequent user of that particular language. Mr C.J. Barnett: How low can you get! Dr G.I. GALLOP: How stupid can the Leader of the Opposition get? That is what it is all about. This is an Opposition with nowhere to go on one vote, one value. They know it is right, they know it is the principled thing to do, they know it is fair for all electors, but they cannot get themselves to vote for that fundamental principle. We have support in the Parliament for our electoral reform legislation and we will make sure - Point of Order Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: No evidence whatsoever was presented at the royal commission to back up what was said against the member for Kingsley, and the Premier is misleading the Parliament on that point. He should withdraw. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Mr C.J. Barnett: How low can you get! Dr G.I. GALLOP: How stupid can the Leader of the Opposition get? That is what it is all about. This is an Opposition with nowhere to go on one vote, one value. They know it is right, they know it is the principled thing to do, they know it is fair for all electors, but they cannot get themselves to vote for that fundamental principle. We have support in the Parliament for our electoral reform legislation and we will make sure - Point of Order Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: No evidence whatsoever was presented at the royal commission to back up what was said against the member for Kingsley, and the Premier is misleading the Parliament on that point. He should withdraw. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: How stupid can the Leader of the Opposition get? That is what it is all about. This is an Opposition with nowhere to go on one vote, one value. They know it is right, they know it is the principled thing to do, they know it is fair for all electors, but they cannot get themselves to vote for that fundamental principle. We have support in the Parliament for our electoral reform legislation and we will make sure - Point of Order Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: No evidence whatsoever was presented at the royal commission to back up what was said against the member for Kingsley, and the Premier is misleading the Parliament on that point. He should withdraw. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
This is an Opposition with nowhere to go on one vote, one value. They know it is right, they know it is the principled thing to do, they know it is fair for all electors, but they cannot get themselves to vote for that fundamental principle. We have support in the Parliament for our electoral reform legislation and we will make sure - Point of Order Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: No evidence whatsoever was presented at the royal commission to back up what was said against the member for Kingsley, and the Premier is misleading the Parliament on that point. He should withdraw. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: The only assault that has occurred on the Western Australian Constitution has been more than 100 years of rorting of our electoral system by the conservative parties. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia has an equal say in the election. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the President of the Legislative Council and his relationship with the Labor Caucus. As far as I know, the Senate has exactly the same system. Over the years, Labor Presidents of the Senate have conducted themselves exactly as they ought to, as would a Labor President in Western Australia under the current system. We have here a conservative rump. The Opposition is desperately trying to defend the indefensible, and the indefensible is malapportionment. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Mr C.J. Barnett: You are rorting the rules. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Explain how giving a person a vote is rorting the rules. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Mr C.J. Barnett: The Supreme Court made a decision. You lost. Now you are going to change the rules. It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: So it is un-Australian to give people a vote? Is it un-Australian to introduce legislation to the Parliament seeking a change to our laws? What is wrong with that? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Mr C.J. Barnett: It is un-Australian not to accept the umpire’s decision. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I remember Hon Ian Thompson when he was a Speaker in this Parliament. In his last days in the Parliament he gave a very interesting speech as an Independent. He said, “If there is going to be discussion about malapportionment and rorting, let us get the record right. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament and the then coalition Government invited me into a room.” We are not talking about electoral commissioners or public servants; we are talking about ministers. They were sitting around a table and they had the electoral map of Perth in front of them showing the boundaries between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan regions. Do members know what they were doing? They were drawing the boundaries to suit his seat. That is the definition of a rort, and the Opposition has been practising it in Western Australia for more than 100 years. The Opposition cannot do it any more, because we now have an independent Electoral Commissioner. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Mr C.J. Barnett: You have no values; you stand for whatever. Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: One vote, one value represents equality for all citizens; a vote for the President in the Legislative Council is a vote for a member of Parliament. Legislation to change our system has been taken through the Parliament - that is parliamentary democracy at work. That is what we support. The Opposition supports rorting and malapportionment.
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.