❓ Mr. Barron-Sullivan questions the Minister for Electoral Affairs on the apparent contradiction of including an entrenchment provision in electoral reform legislation, requiring an absolute majority to change Labor's electoral boundaries, given the Minister's stated principle against encumbering future Parliaments. The Minister defends the provision by referencing existing 'manner and form' clauses and arguing it protects a democratic principle.
AnsweredQoN 63Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to the comments he made last night in this chamber when he said, if I can paraphrase, that one of the principles of parliamentary democracy is that a Parliament should not encumber a future Parliament and for that reason we should not pass laws that would tie the hands of a future Parliament. I think I have heard the minister reported in the media saying the same thing. If that is the case, why has the minister incorporated into his electoral reform legislation just such an encumbrance on a future Parliament through a specific entrenchment provision that will stop a future Parliament from changing Labor’s electoral gerrymander without an absolute majority of votes? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
As was pointed out during the course of that debate, in the United Kingdom, which is the origin of our parliamentary system, a Parliament cannot tie the hands of a future Parliament by placing fetters on its legislative capacity. In the commonwealth Parliament, the commonwealth Parliament cannot place fetters on parliamentary democracy, or parliamentary supremacy for that matter. Parliament cannot by a resolution of the Parliament, in the commonwealth or in the United Kingdom, tie the hands of a future Parliament democratically elected by the people. In this state we have a manner and form provision in the legislation that enables that to occur. It is done from time to time in a most undemocratic way. By simple majority this Parliament could, if it were so minded, require that future changes to all forms of legislation need a two-thirds majority. We all know what the practical effect of that would be: it would tie the hands of a future democratically elected Parliament. That is the principle that is involved and to which we were referring. In the case of electoral distributions we have had, for a very long time, a manner and form clause that requires an absolute majority for certain amendments to the distribution process. We took a step towards giving that historic provision some purpose, and that was to have it relate to a democratic principle rather than just be an impediment upon the powers of a future Parliament. That is what appears in the bill; that is what we have been debating for the past three days and that is the reason for it.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: As was pointed out during the course of that debate, in the United Kingdom, which is the origin of our parliamentary system, a Parliament cannot tie the hands of a future Parliament by placing fetters on its legislative capacity. In the commonwealth Parliament, the commonwealth Parliament cannot place fetters on parliamentary democracy, or parliamentary supremacy for that matter. Parliament cannot by a resolution of the Parliament, in the commonwealth or in the United Kingdom, tie the hands of a future Parliament democratically elected by the people. In this state we have a manner and form provision in the legislation that enables that to occur. It is done from time to time in a most undemocratic way. By simple majority this Parliament could, if it were so minded, require that future changes to all forms of legislation need a two-thirds majority. We all know what the practical effect of that would be: it would tie the hands of a future democratically elected Parliament. That is the principle that is involved and to which we were referring. In the case of electoral distributions we have had, for a very long time, a manner and form clause that requires an absolute majority for certain amendments to the distribution process. We took a step towards giving that historic provision some purpose, and that was to have it relate to a democratic principle rather than just be an impediment upon the powers of a future Parliament. That is what appears in the bill; that is what we have been debating for the past three days and that is the reason for it.
As was pointed out during the course of that debate, in the United Kingdom, which is the origin of our parliamentary system, a Parliament cannot tie the hands of a future Parliament by placing fetters on its legislative capacity. In the commonwealth Parliament, the commonwealth Parliament cannot place fetters on parliamentary democracy, or parliamentary supremacy for that matter. Parliament cannot by a resolution of the Parliament, in the commonwealth or in the United Kingdom, tie the hands of a future Parliament democratically elected by the people. In this state we have a manner and form provision in the legislation that enables that to occur. It is done from time to time in a most undemocratic way. By simple majority this Parliament could, if it were so minded, require that future changes to all forms of legislation need a two-thirds majority. We all know what the practical effect of that would be: it would tie the hands of a future democratically elected Parliament. That is the principle that is involved and to which we were referring. In the case of electoral distributions we have had, for a very long time, a manner and form clause that requires an absolute majority for certain amendments to the distribution process. We took a step towards giving that historic provision some purpose, and that was to have it relate to a democratic principle rather than just be an impediment upon the powers of a future Parliament. That is what appears in the bill; that is what we have been debating for the past three days and that is the reason for it.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: As was pointed out during the course of that debate, in the United Kingdom, which is the origin of our parliamentary system, a Parliament cannot tie the hands of a future Parliament by placing fetters on its legislative capacity. In the commonwealth Parliament, the commonwealth Parliament cannot place fetters on parliamentary democracy, or parliamentary supremacy for that matter. Parliament cannot by a resolution of the Parliament, in the commonwealth or in the United Kingdom, tie the hands of a future Parliament democratically elected by the people. In this state we have a manner and form provision in the legislation that enables that to occur. It is done from time to time in a most undemocratic way. By simple majority this Parliament could, if it were so minded, require that future changes to all forms of legislation need a two-thirds majority. We all know what the practical effect of that would be: it would tie the hands of a future democratically elected Parliament. That is the principle that is involved and to which we were referring. In the case of electoral distributions we have had, for a very long time, a manner and form clause that requires an absolute majority for certain amendments to the distribution process. We took a step towards giving that historic provision some purpose, and that was to have it relate to a democratic principle rather than just be an impediment upon the powers of a future Parliament. That is what appears in the bill; that is what we have been debating for the past three days and that is the reason for it.
As was pointed out during the course of that debate, in the United Kingdom, which is the origin of our parliamentary system, a Parliament cannot tie the hands of a future Parliament by placing fetters on its legislative capacity. In the commonwealth Parliament, the commonwealth Parliament cannot place fetters on parliamentary democracy, or parliamentary supremacy for that matter. Parliament cannot by a resolution of the Parliament, in the commonwealth or in the United Kingdom, tie the hands of a future Parliament democratically elected by the people. In this state we have a manner and form provision in the legislation that enables that to occur. It is done from time to time in a most undemocratic way. By simple majority this Parliament could, if it were so minded, require that future changes to all forms of legislation need a two-thirds majority. We all know what the practical effect of that would be: it would tie the hands of a future democratically elected Parliament. That is the principle that is involved and to which we were referring. In the case of electoral distributions we have had, for a very long time, a manner and form clause that requires an absolute majority for certain amendments to the distribution process. We took a step towards giving that historic provision some purpose, and that was to have it relate to a democratic principle rather than just be an impediment upon the powers of a future Parliament. That is what appears in the bill; that is what we have been debating for the past three days and that is the reason for it.
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.