❓ Mr. Barnett questions Premier Gallop's threat to local governments regarding funding for the 'no' case in the electoral reform legislation Supreme Court action, arguing the Premier is unfairly restricting opposition while taxpayer funds support the 'yes' case. Premier Gallop defends his position by stating that the Clerk of the Legislative Council will present both sides of the case and that the opposition should fund their own arguments.
AnsweredQoN 746Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ELECTORAL REFORM LEGISLATION, FUNDING FOR NO CASE
I refer the Premier to his threat to local government authorities and their support for the Supreme Court action concerning the electoral reform legislation. The Premier said, “I say to local governments, if you are going to waste your money on political purposes like this, we are going to have to reconsider our grant programs.” (1) Will the Premier acknowledge that the matter was referred to the Supreme Court by the Clerk of the Legislative Council to determine the constitutional validity of the passage of the electoral reform legislation and not, as the Premier has asserted, simply as a political exercise? (2) If the yes case is being funded by the taxpayer, what right does the Premier have to deny local governments the opportunity to support the no case? Dr GALLOP
I refer the Premier to his threat to local government authorities and their support for the Supreme Court action concerning the electoral reform legislation. The Premier said, “I say to local governments, if you are going to waste your money on political purposes like this, we are going to have to reconsider our grant programs.” (1) Will the Premier acknowledge that the matter was referred to the Supreme Court by the Clerk of the Legislative Council to determine the constitutional validity of the passage of the electoral reform legislation and not, as the Premier has asserted, simply as a political exercise? (2) If the yes case is being funded by the taxpayer, what right does the Premier have to deny local governments the opportunity to support the no case? Dr GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) We must go to the heart of this issue, which is that today taxpayers and ratepayers all around Western Australia expect their Governments to spend their money properly. Neither the local governments nor the State Government owns this money; it is the people’s money and should be spent properly. That is why my Government has slashed from the budget money that was being spent on political advertising, consultants and travel. The Government has taken $119 million over four years from the budget and will spend it on direct services. That is the way we govern in this State. Through an addendum to the electoral reform legislation, the Legislative Council has referred this matter to the Supreme Court. When the Clerk of the Legislative Council goes to the Supreme Court, he will present both the yes and the no cases. In other words, Parliament is using its money quite appropriately to make sure that the will of the Parliament is properly discharged in relation to the Supreme Court. Now I will refer to the money that is being gathered by those who want to present their own arguments. I will give members an analogy. When the Western Australian Labor Party went to the High Court - Mr Graham interjected. Dr GALLOP: That is right. The SPEAKER: The level of interjections from members who have been here long enough to know better is unacceptable. Dr GALLOP: As the custodian of the existing legislation, the then Government of Western Australia defended its position in the High Court. Who paid for the Labor Party’s case? Rightly, friends, supporters and members of the Labor Party paid for the case. However, the Liberal and the National Parties will not put their money where their mouth is. They should pay for the argument against the legislation, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying quite appropriately through the parliamentary mechanism. If the Opposition wants to argue against the legislation in the Supreme Court, it should pay for it. The ratepayers and taxpayers all over Western Australia now have a Government that is defending their interests against people who want to waste money on political purposes.
(1) Will the Premier acknowledge that the matter was referred to the Supreme Court by the Clerk of the Legislative Council to determine the constitutional validity of the passage of the electoral reform legislation and not, as the Premier has asserted, simply as a political exercise? (2) If the yes case is being funded by the taxpayer, what right does the Premier have to deny local governments the opportunity to support the no case? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) We must go to the heart of this issue, which is that today taxpayers and ratepayers all around Western Australia expect their Governments to spend their money properly. Neither the local governments nor the State Government owns this money; it is the people’s money and should be spent properly. That is why my Government has slashed from the budget money that was being spent on political advertising, consultants and travel. The Government has taken $119 million over four years from the budget and will spend it on direct services. That is the way we govern in this State. Through an addendum to the electoral reform legislation, the Legislative Council has referred this matter to the Supreme Court. When the Clerk of the Legislative Council goes to the Supreme Court, he will present both the yes and the no cases. In other words, Parliament is using its money quite appropriately to make sure that the will of the Parliament is properly discharged in relation to the Supreme Court. Now I will refer to the money that is being gathered by those who want to present their own arguments. I will give members an analogy. When the Western Australian Labor Party went to the High Court - Mr Graham interjected. Dr GALLOP: That is right. The SPEAKER: The level of interjections from members who have been here long enough to know better is unacceptable. Dr GALLOP: As the custodian of the existing legislation, the then Government of Western Australia defended its position in the High Court. Who paid for the Labor Party’s case? Rightly, friends, supporters and members of the Labor Party paid for the case. However, the Liberal and the National Parties will not put their money where their mouth is. They should pay for the argument against the legislation, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying quite appropriately through the parliamentary mechanism. If the Opposition wants to argue against the legislation in the Supreme Court, it should pay for it. The ratepayers and taxpayers all over Western Australia now have a Government that is defending their interests against people who want to waste money on political purposes.
(2) If the yes case is being funded by the taxpayer, what right does the Premier have to deny local governments the opportunity to support the no case? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) We must go to the heart of this issue, which is that today taxpayers and ratepayers all around Western Australia expect their Governments to spend their money properly. Neither the local governments nor the State Government owns this money; it is the people’s money and should be spent properly. That is why my Government has slashed from the budget money that was being spent on political advertising, consultants and travel. The Government has taken $119 million over four years from the budget and will spend it on direct services. That is the way we govern in this State. Through an addendum to the electoral reform legislation, the Legislative Council has referred this matter to the Supreme Court. When the Clerk of the Legislative Council goes to the Supreme Court, he will present both the yes and the no cases. In other words, Parliament is using its money quite appropriately to make sure that the will of the Parliament is properly discharged in relation to the Supreme Court. Now I will refer to the money that is being gathered by those who want to present their own arguments. I will give members an analogy. When the Western Australian Labor Party went to the High Court - Mr Graham interjected. Dr GALLOP: That is right. The SPEAKER: The level of interjections from members who have been here long enough to know better is unacceptable. Dr GALLOP: As the custodian of the existing legislation, the then Government of Western Australia defended its position in the High Court. Who paid for the Labor Party’s case? Rightly, friends, supporters and members of the Labor Party paid for the case. However, the Liberal and the National Parties will not put their money where their mouth is. They should pay for the argument against the legislation, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying quite appropriately through the parliamentary mechanism. If the Opposition wants to argue against the legislation in the Supreme Court, it should pay for it. The ratepayers and taxpayers all over Western Australia now have a Government that is defending their interests against people who want to waste money on political purposes.
Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) We must go to the heart of this issue, which is that today taxpayers and ratepayers all around Western Australia expect their Governments to spend their money properly. Neither the local governments nor the State Government owns this money; it is the people’s money and should be spent properly. That is why my Government has slashed from the budget money that was being spent on political advertising, consultants and travel. The Government has taken $119 million over four years from the budget and will spend it on direct services. That is the way we govern in this State. Through an addendum to the electoral reform legislation, the Legislative Council has referred this matter to the Supreme Court. When the Clerk of the Legislative Council goes to the Supreme Court, he will present both the yes and the no cases. In other words, Parliament is using its money quite appropriately to make sure that the will of the Parliament is properly discharged in relation to the Supreme Court. Now I will refer to the money that is being gathered by those who want to present their own arguments. I will give members an analogy. When the Western Australian Labor Party went to the High Court - Mr Graham interjected. Dr GALLOP: That is right. The SPEAKER: The level of interjections from members who have been here long enough to know better is unacceptable. Dr GALLOP: As the custodian of the existing legislation, the then Government of Western Australia defended its position in the High Court. Who paid for the Labor Party’s case? Rightly, friends, supporters and members of the Labor Party paid for the case. However, the Liberal and the National Parties will not put their money where their mouth is. They should pay for the argument against the legislation, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying quite appropriately through the parliamentary mechanism. If the Opposition wants to argue against the legislation in the Supreme Court, it should pay for it. The ratepayers and taxpayers all over Western Australia now have a Government that is defending their interests against people who want to waste money on political purposes.
(1)-(2) We must go to the heart of this issue, which is that today taxpayers and ratepayers all around Western Australia expect their Governments to spend their money properly. Neither the local governments nor the State Government owns this money; it is the people’s money and should be spent properly. That is why my Government has slashed from the budget money that was being spent on political advertising, consultants and travel. The Government has taken $119 million over four years from the budget and will spend it on direct services. That is the way we govern in this State. Through an addendum to the electoral reform legislation, the Legislative Council has referred this matter to the Supreme Court. When the Clerk of the Legislative Council goes to the Supreme Court, he will present both the yes and the no cases. In other words, Parliament is using its money quite appropriately to make sure that the will of the Parliament is properly discharged in relation to the Supreme Court. Now I will refer to the money that is being gathered by those who want to present their own arguments. I will give members an analogy. When the Western Australian Labor Party went to the High Court - Mr Graham interjected. Dr GALLOP: That is right. The SPEAKER: The level of interjections from members who have been here long enough to know better is unacceptable. Dr GALLOP: As the custodian of the existing legislation, the then Government of Western Australia defended its position in the High Court. Who paid for the Labor Party’s case? Rightly, friends, supporters and members of the Labor Party paid for the case. However, the Liberal and the National Parties will not put their money where their mouth is. They should pay for the argument against the legislation, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying quite appropriately through the parliamentary mechanism. If the Opposition wants to argue against the legislation in the Supreme Court, it should pay for it. The ratepayers and taxpayers all over Western Australia now have a Government that is defending their interests against people who want to waste money on political purposes.
Now I will refer to the money that is being gathered by those who want to present their own arguments. I will give members an analogy. When the Western Australian Labor Party went to the High Court -
Dr GALLOP: That is right. The SPEAKER: The level of interjections from members who have been here long enough to know better is unacceptable. Dr GALLOP: As the custodian of the existing legislation, the then Government of Western Australia defended its position in the High Court. Who paid for the Labor Party’s case? Rightly, friends, supporters and members of the Labor Party paid for the case. However, the Liberal and the National Parties will not put their money where their mouth is. They should pay for the argument against the legislation, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying quite appropriately through the parliamentary mechanism. If the Opposition wants to argue against the legislation in the Supreme Court, it should pay for it. The ratepayers and taxpayers all over Western Australia now have a Government that is defending their interests against people who want to waste money on political purposes.
The SPEAKER: The level of interjections from members who have been here long enough to know better is unacceptable. Dr GALLOP: As the custodian of the existing legislation, the then Government of Western Australia defended its position in the High Court. Who paid for the Labor Party’s case? Rightly, friends, supporters and members of the Labor Party paid for the case. However, the Liberal and the National Parties will not put their money where their mouth is. They should pay for the argument against the legislation, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying quite appropriately through the parliamentary mechanism. If the Opposition wants to argue against the legislation in the Supreme Court, it should pay for it. The ratepayers and taxpayers all over Western Australia now have a Government that is defending their interests against people who want to waste money on political purposes.
Dr GALLOP: As the custodian of the existing legislation, the then Government of Western Australia defended its position in the High Court. Who paid for the Labor Party’s case? Rightly, friends, supporters and members of the Labor Party paid for the case. However, the Liberal and the National Parties will not put their money where their mouth is. They should pay for the argument against the legislation, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying quite appropriately through the parliamentary mechanism. If the Opposition wants to argue against the legislation in the Supreme Court, it should pay for it. The ratepayers and taxpayers all over Western Australia now have a Government that is defending their interests against people who want to waste money on political purposes.
(1) Will the Premier acknowledge that the matter was referred to the Supreme Court by the Clerk of the Legislative Council to determine the constitutional validity of the passage of the electoral reform legislation and not, as the Premier has asserted, simply as a political exercise? (2) If the yes case is being funded by the taxpayer, what right does the Premier have to deny local governments the opportunity to support the no case? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) We must go to the heart of this issue, which is that today taxpayers and ratepayers all around Western Australia expect their Governments to spend their money properly. Neither the local governments nor the State Government owns this money; it is the people’s money and should be spent properly. That is why my Government has slashed from the budget money that was being spent on political advertising, consultants and travel. The Government has taken $119 million over four years from the budget and will spend it on direct services. That is the way we govern in this State. Through an addendum to the electoral reform legislation, the Legislative Council has referred this matter to the Supreme Court. When the Clerk of the Legislative Council goes to the Supreme Court, he will present both the yes and the no cases. In other words, Parliament is using its money quite appropriately to make sure that the will of the Parliament is properly discharged in relation to the Supreme Court. Now I will refer to the money that is being gathered by those who want to present their own arguments. I will give members an analogy. When the Western Australian Labor Party went to the High Court - Mr Graham interjected. Dr GALLOP: That is right. The SPEAKER: The level of interjections from members who have been here long enough to know better is unacceptable. Dr GALLOP: As the custodian of the existing legislation, the then Government of Western Australia defended its position in the High Court. Who paid for the Labor Party’s case? Rightly, friends, supporters and members of the Labor Party paid for the case. However, the Liberal and the National Parties will not put their money where their mouth is. They should pay for the argument against the legislation, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying quite appropriately through the parliamentary mechanism. If the Opposition wants to argue against the legislation in the Supreme Court, it should pay for it. The ratepayers and taxpayers all over Western Australia now have a Government that is defending their interests against people who want to waste money on political purposes.
(2) If the yes case is being funded by the taxpayer, what right does the Premier have to deny local governments the opportunity to support the no case? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) We must go to the heart of this issue, which is that today taxpayers and ratepayers all around Western Australia expect their Governments to spend their money properly. Neither the local governments nor the State Government owns this money; it is the people’s money and should be spent properly. That is why my Government has slashed from the budget money that was being spent on political advertising, consultants and travel. The Government has taken $119 million over four years from the budget and will spend it on direct services. That is the way we govern in this State. Through an addendum to the electoral reform legislation, the Legislative Council has referred this matter to the Supreme Court. When the Clerk of the Legislative Council goes to the Supreme Court, he will present both the yes and the no cases. In other words, Parliament is using its money quite appropriately to make sure that the will of the Parliament is properly discharged in relation to the Supreme Court. Now I will refer to the money that is being gathered by those who want to present their own arguments. I will give members an analogy. When the Western Australian Labor Party went to the High Court - Mr Graham interjected. Dr GALLOP: That is right. The SPEAKER: The level of interjections from members who have been here long enough to know better is unacceptable. Dr GALLOP: As the custodian of the existing legislation, the then Government of Western Australia defended its position in the High Court. Who paid for the Labor Party’s case? Rightly, friends, supporters and members of the Labor Party paid for the case. However, the Liberal and the National Parties will not put their money where their mouth is. They should pay for the argument against the legislation, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying quite appropriately through the parliamentary mechanism. If the Opposition wants to argue against the legislation in the Supreme Court, it should pay for it. The ratepayers and taxpayers all over Western Australia now have a Government that is defending their interests against people who want to waste money on political purposes.
Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) We must go to the heart of this issue, which is that today taxpayers and ratepayers all around Western Australia expect their Governments to spend their money properly. Neither the local governments nor the State Government owns this money; it is the people’s money and should be spent properly. That is why my Government has slashed from the budget money that was being spent on political advertising, consultants and travel. The Government has taken $119 million over four years from the budget and will spend it on direct services. That is the way we govern in this State. Through an addendum to the electoral reform legislation, the Legislative Council has referred this matter to the Supreme Court. When the Clerk of the Legislative Council goes to the Supreme Court, he will present both the yes and the no cases. In other words, Parliament is using its money quite appropriately to make sure that the will of the Parliament is properly discharged in relation to the Supreme Court. Now I will refer to the money that is being gathered by those who want to present their own arguments. I will give members an analogy. When the Western Australian Labor Party went to the High Court - Mr Graham interjected. Dr GALLOP: That is right. The SPEAKER: The level of interjections from members who have been here long enough to know better is unacceptable. Dr GALLOP: As the custodian of the existing legislation, the then Government of Western Australia defended its position in the High Court. Who paid for the Labor Party’s case? Rightly, friends, supporters and members of the Labor Party paid for the case. However, the Liberal and the National Parties will not put their money where their mouth is. They should pay for the argument against the legislation, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying quite appropriately through the parliamentary mechanism. If the Opposition wants to argue against the legislation in the Supreme Court, it should pay for it. The ratepayers and taxpayers all over Western Australia now have a Government that is defending their interests against people who want to waste money on political purposes.
(1)-(2) We must go to the heart of this issue, which is that today taxpayers and ratepayers all around Western Australia expect their Governments to spend their money properly. Neither the local governments nor the State Government owns this money; it is the people’s money and should be spent properly. That is why my Government has slashed from the budget money that was being spent on political advertising, consultants and travel. The Government has taken $119 million over four years from the budget and will spend it on direct services. That is the way we govern in this State. Through an addendum to the electoral reform legislation, the Legislative Council has referred this matter to the Supreme Court. When the Clerk of the Legislative Council goes to the Supreme Court, he will present both the yes and the no cases. In other words, Parliament is using its money quite appropriately to make sure that the will of the Parliament is properly discharged in relation to the Supreme Court. Now I will refer to the money that is being gathered by those who want to present their own arguments. I will give members an analogy. When the Western Australian Labor Party went to the High Court - Mr Graham interjected. Dr GALLOP: That is right. The SPEAKER: The level of interjections from members who have been here long enough to know better is unacceptable. Dr GALLOP: As the custodian of the existing legislation, the then Government of Western Australia defended its position in the High Court. Who paid for the Labor Party’s case? Rightly, friends, supporters and members of the Labor Party paid for the case. However, the Liberal and the National Parties will not put their money where their mouth is. They should pay for the argument against the legislation, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying quite appropriately through the parliamentary mechanism. If the Opposition wants to argue against the legislation in the Supreme Court, it should pay for it. The ratepayers and taxpayers all over Western Australia now have a Government that is defending their interests against people who want to waste money on political purposes.
Now I will refer to the money that is being gathered by those who want to present their own arguments. I will give members an analogy. When the Western Australian Labor Party went to the High Court -
Dr GALLOP: That is right. The SPEAKER: The level of interjections from members who have been here long enough to know better is unacceptable. Dr GALLOP: As the custodian of the existing legislation, the then Government of Western Australia defended its position in the High Court. Who paid for the Labor Party’s case? Rightly, friends, supporters and members of the Labor Party paid for the case. However, the Liberal and the National Parties will not put their money where their mouth is. They should pay for the argument against the legislation, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying quite appropriately through the parliamentary mechanism. If the Opposition wants to argue against the legislation in the Supreme Court, it should pay for it. The ratepayers and taxpayers all over Western Australia now have a Government that is defending their interests against people who want to waste money on political purposes.
The SPEAKER: The level of interjections from members who have been here long enough to know better is unacceptable. Dr GALLOP: As the custodian of the existing legislation, the then Government of Western Australia defended its position in the High Court. Who paid for the Labor Party’s case? Rightly, friends, supporters and members of the Labor Party paid for the case. However, the Liberal and the National Parties will not put their money where their mouth is. They should pay for the argument against the legislation, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying quite appropriately through the parliamentary mechanism. If the Opposition wants to argue against the legislation in the Supreme Court, it should pay for it. The ratepayers and taxpayers all over Western Australia now have a Government that is defending their interests against people who want to waste money on political purposes.
Dr GALLOP: As the custodian of the existing legislation, the then Government of Western Australia defended its position in the High Court. Who paid for the Labor Party’s case? Rightly, friends, supporters and members of the Labor Party paid for the case. However, the Liberal and the National Parties will not put their money where their mouth is. They should pay for the argument against the legislation, not the ratepayers or taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying quite appropriately through the parliamentary mechanism. If the Opposition wants to argue against the legislation in the Supreme Court, it should pay for it. The ratepayers and taxpayers all over Western Australia now have a Government that is defending their interests against people who want to waste money on political purposes.
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.