❓ The Premier defends the government's decision to appeal the Supreme Court's ruling on electoral change legislation, accusing the opposition of hypocrisy and asserting the right to pursue legal avenues to achieve 'one vote, one value'.
AnsweredQoN 302Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the clear decision by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court on 11 October of this year that the Premier’s electoral change legislation was unlawful, and to his Attorney General’s arrogant announcement today that he will seek special leave to appeal that decision in the High Court of Australia. (1) If the Premier is so sure that his legislation giving the President of the upper House a deliberative vote, which is currently before the Parliament, is lawful and constitutionally watertight, why does he need to challenge the recent Supreme Court decision, or is he concerned that his legislation is in fact faulty? (2) Is the real reason that the Premier will not accept the umpire’s decision the fact that his Attorney General is now the dominant decision-maker in government ranks and that this has become his personal crusade? Dr G.I. GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) It is interesting that the Opposition raises the question of leadership. I find it fascinating that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party raises this issue. I have yet to hear the Leader of the Opposition make a comment on the question of one vote, one value. Perhaps it is because he knows it is a principle that should be supported. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether that is the case. The Leader of the Opposition supports one vote, one value and is embarrassed about his party taking a position that is so inconsistent with the proper application of human rights in Australia today. Members will remember that last week I picked up the Liberal Party dictionary. I will refer to the Liberal Party dictionary again today and look up the word “arrogance”. According to the Liberal Party, “arrogance” means pursuing lawful process. Dr J.M. Woollard: That is hypocrisy. Dr G.I. GALLOP: What is undemocratic about trying to take a Bill through the Parliament? Here we have it: the conservatives are caught out again. Let us look at the two issues we are pursuing. First, the Government is going to the Parliament of Western Australia. We hope that the Greens (WA) in the Legislative Council will support us in a move to give a vote to the President of the Legislative Council so that of the 34 members of that Chamber, the 18 members who support the principle of one vote, one value can exercise their vote and have it counted. That is a matter for the Greens (WA). The Government has been very open with the Greens. We would love them to support that change, so that the will of the people at the election can be reflected in the laws of Western Australia. I turn to another issue and refer again to my Liberal dictionary. The other definition of arrogance in the Liberal dictionary is to pursue one’s right to make an appeal to the High Court. The Parliament of Western Australia supports one vote, one value. The Government of Western Australia legislated to that end. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the way that was done has been ruled out. Australia has another court, called the High Court. Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
(1) If the Premier is so sure that his legislation giving the President of the upper House a deliberative vote, which is currently before the Parliament, is lawful and constitutionally watertight, why does he need to challenge the recent Supreme Court decision, or is he concerned that his legislation is in fact faulty? (2) Is the real reason that the Premier will not accept the umpire’s decision the fact that his Attorney General is now the dominant decision-maker in government ranks and that this has become his personal crusade? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) It is interesting that the Opposition raises the question of leadership. I find it fascinating that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party raises this issue. I have yet to hear the Leader of the Opposition make a comment on the question of one vote, one value. Perhaps it is because he knows it is a principle that should be supported. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether that is the case. The Leader of the Opposition supports one vote, one value and is embarrassed about his party taking a position that is so inconsistent with the proper application of human rights in Australia today. Members will remember that last week I picked up the Liberal Party dictionary. I will refer to the Liberal Party dictionary again today and look up the word “arrogance”. According to the Liberal Party, “arrogance” means pursuing lawful process. Dr J.M. Woollard: That is hypocrisy. Dr G.I. GALLOP: What is undemocratic about trying to take a Bill through the Parliament? Here we have it: the conservatives are caught out again. Let us look at the two issues we are pursuing. First, the Government is going to the Parliament of Western Australia. We hope that the Greens (WA) in the Legislative Council will support us in a move to give a vote to the President of the Legislative Council so that of the 34 members of that Chamber, the 18 members who support the principle of one vote, one value can exercise their vote and have it counted. That is a matter for the Greens (WA). The Government has been very open with the Greens. We would love them to support that change, so that the will of the people at the election can be reflected in the laws of Western Australia. I turn to another issue and refer again to my Liberal dictionary. The other definition of arrogance in the Liberal dictionary is to pursue one’s right to make an appeal to the High Court. The Parliament of Western Australia supports one vote, one value. The Government of Western Australia legislated to that end. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the way that was done has been ruled out. Australia has another court, called the High Court. Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
(2) Is the real reason that the Premier will not accept the umpire’s decision the fact that his Attorney General is now the dominant decision-maker in government ranks and that this has become his personal crusade? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) It is interesting that the Opposition raises the question of leadership. I find it fascinating that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party raises this issue. I have yet to hear the Leader of the Opposition make a comment on the question of one vote, one value. Perhaps it is because he knows it is a principle that should be supported. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether that is the case. The Leader of the Opposition supports one vote, one value and is embarrassed about his party taking a position that is so inconsistent with the proper application of human rights in Australia today. Members will remember that last week I picked up the Liberal Party dictionary. I will refer to the Liberal Party dictionary again today and look up the word “arrogance”. According to the Liberal Party, “arrogance” means pursuing lawful process. Dr J.M. Woollard: That is hypocrisy. Dr G.I. GALLOP: What is undemocratic about trying to take a Bill through the Parliament? Here we have it: the conservatives are caught out again. Let us look at the two issues we are pursuing. First, the Government is going to the Parliament of Western Australia. We hope that the Greens (WA) in the Legislative Council will support us in a move to give a vote to the President of the Legislative Council so that of the 34 members of that Chamber, the 18 members who support the principle of one vote, one value can exercise their vote and have it counted. That is a matter for the Greens (WA). The Government has been very open with the Greens. We would love them to support that change, so that the will of the people at the election can be reflected in the laws of Western Australia. I turn to another issue and refer again to my Liberal dictionary. The other definition of arrogance in the Liberal dictionary is to pursue one’s right to make an appeal to the High Court. The Parliament of Western Australia supports one vote, one value. The Government of Western Australia legislated to that end. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the way that was done has been ruled out. Australia has another court, called the High Court. Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) It is interesting that the Opposition raises the question of leadership. I find it fascinating that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party raises this issue. I have yet to hear the Leader of the Opposition make a comment on the question of one vote, one value. Perhaps it is because he knows it is a principle that should be supported. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether that is the case. The Leader of the Opposition supports one vote, one value and is embarrassed about his party taking a position that is so inconsistent with the proper application of human rights in Australia today. Members will remember that last week I picked up the Liberal Party dictionary. I will refer to the Liberal Party dictionary again today and look up the word “arrogance”. According to the Liberal Party, “arrogance” means pursuing lawful process. Dr J.M. Woollard: That is hypocrisy. Dr G.I. GALLOP: What is undemocratic about trying to take a Bill through the Parliament? Here we have it: the conservatives are caught out again. Let us look at the two issues we are pursuing. First, the Government is going to the Parliament of Western Australia. We hope that the Greens (WA) in the Legislative Council will support us in a move to give a vote to the President of the Legislative Council so that of the 34 members of that Chamber, the 18 members who support the principle of one vote, one value can exercise their vote and have it counted. That is a matter for the Greens (WA). The Government has been very open with the Greens. We would love them to support that change, so that the will of the people at the election can be reflected in the laws of Western Australia. I turn to another issue and refer again to my Liberal dictionary. The other definition of arrogance in the Liberal dictionary is to pursue one’s right to make an appeal to the High Court. The Parliament of Western Australia supports one vote, one value. The Government of Western Australia legislated to that end. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the way that was done has been ruled out. Australia has another court, called the High Court. Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
(1)-(2) It is interesting that the Opposition raises the question of leadership. I find it fascinating that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party raises this issue. I have yet to hear the Leader of the Opposition make a comment on the question of one vote, one value. Perhaps it is because he knows it is a principle that should be supported. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether that is the case. The Leader of the Opposition supports one vote, one value and is embarrassed about his party taking a position that is so inconsistent with the proper application of human rights in Australia today. Members will remember that last week I picked up the Liberal Party dictionary. I will refer to the Liberal Party dictionary again today and look up the word “arrogance”. According to the Liberal Party, “arrogance” means pursuing lawful process. Dr J.M. Woollard: That is hypocrisy. Dr G.I. GALLOP: What is undemocratic about trying to take a Bill through the Parliament? Here we have it: the conservatives are caught out again. Let us look at the two issues we are pursuing. First, the Government is going to the Parliament of Western Australia. We hope that the Greens (WA) in the Legislative Council will support us in a move to give a vote to the President of the Legislative Council so that of the 34 members of that Chamber, the 18 members who support the principle of one vote, one value can exercise their vote and have it counted. That is a matter for the Greens (WA). The Government has been very open with the Greens. We would love them to support that change, so that the will of the people at the election can be reflected in the laws of Western Australia. I turn to another issue and refer again to my Liberal dictionary. The other definition of arrogance in the Liberal dictionary is to pursue one’s right to make an appeal to the High Court. The Parliament of Western Australia supports one vote, one value. The Government of Western Australia legislated to that end. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the way that was done has been ruled out. Australia has another court, called the High Court. Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr J.M. Woollard: That is hypocrisy. Dr G.I. GALLOP: What is undemocratic about trying to take a Bill through the Parliament? Here we have it: the conservatives are caught out again. Let us look at the two issues we are pursuing. First, the Government is going to the Parliament of Western Australia. We hope that the Greens (WA) in the Legislative Council will support us in a move to give a vote to the President of the Legislative Council so that of the 34 members of that Chamber, the 18 members who support the principle of one vote, one value can exercise their vote and have it counted. That is a matter for the Greens (WA). The Government has been very open with the Greens. We would love them to support that change, so that the will of the people at the election can be reflected in the laws of Western Australia. I turn to another issue and refer again to my Liberal dictionary. The other definition of arrogance in the Liberal dictionary is to pursue one’s right to make an appeal to the High Court. The Parliament of Western Australia supports one vote, one value. The Government of Western Australia legislated to that end. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the way that was done has been ruled out. Australia has another court, called the High Court. Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: What is undemocratic about trying to take a Bill through the Parliament? Here we have it: the conservatives are caught out again. Let us look at the two issues we are pursuing. First, the Government is going to the Parliament of Western Australia. We hope that the Greens (WA) in the Legislative Council will support us in a move to give a vote to the President of the Legislative Council so that of the 34 members of that Chamber, the 18 members who support the principle of one vote, one value can exercise their vote and have it counted. That is a matter for the Greens (WA). The Government has been very open with the Greens. We would love them to support that change, so that the will of the people at the election can be reflected in the laws of Western Australia. I turn to another issue and refer again to my Liberal dictionary. The other definition of arrogance in the Liberal dictionary is to pursue one’s right to make an appeal to the High Court. The Parliament of Western Australia supports one vote, one value. The Government of Western Australia legislated to that end. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the way that was done has been ruled out. Australia has another court, called the High Court. Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
I turn to another issue and refer again to my Liberal dictionary. The other definition of arrogance in the Liberal dictionary is to pursue one’s right to make an appeal to the High Court. The Parliament of Western Australia supports one vote, one value. The Government of Western Australia legislated to that end. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the way that was done has been ruled out. Australia has another court, called the High Court. Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
(1) If the Premier is so sure that his legislation giving the President of the upper House a deliberative vote, which is currently before the Parliament, is lawful and constitutionally watertight, why does he need to challenge the recent Supreme Court decision, or is he concerned that his legislation is in fact faulty? (2) Is the real reason that the Premier will not accept the umpire’s decision the fact that his Attorney General is now the dominant decision-maker in government ranks and that this has become his personal crusade? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) It is interesting that the Opposition raises the question of leadership. I find it fascinating that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party raises this issue. I have yet to hear the Leader of the Opposition make a comment on the question of one vote, one value. Perhaps it is because he knows it is a principle that should be supported. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether that is the case. The Leader of the Opposition supports one vote, one value and is embarrassed about his party taking a position that is so inconsistent with the proper application of human rights in Australia today. Members will remember that last week I picked up the Liberal Party dictionary. I will refer to the Liberal Party dictionary again today and look up the word “arrogance”. According to the Liberal Party, “arrogance” means pursuing lawful process. Dr J.M. Woollard: That is hypocrisy. Dr G.I. GALLOP: What is undemocratic about trying to take a Bill through the Parliament? Here we have it: the conservatives are caught out again. Let us look at the two issues we are pursuing. First, the Government is going to the Parliament of Western Australia. We hope that the Greens (WA) in the Legislative Council will support us in a move to give a vote to the President of the Legislative Council so that of the 34 members of that Chamber, the 18 members who support the principle of one vote, one value can exercise their vote and have it counted. That is a matter for the Greens (WA). The Government has been very open with the Greens. We would love them to support that change, so that the will of the people at the election can be reflected in the laws of Western Australia. I turn to another issue and refer again to my Liberal dictionary. The other definition of arrogance in the Liberal dictionary is to pursue one’s right to make an appeal to the High Court. The Parliament of Western Australia supports one vote, one value. The Government of Western Australia legislated to that end. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the way that was done has been ruled out. Australia has another court, called the High Court. Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
(2) Is the real reason that the Premier will not accept the umpire’s decision the fact that his Attorney General is now the dominant decision-maker in government ranks and that this has become his personal crusade? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) It is interesting that the Opposition raises the question of leadership. I find it fascinating that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party raises this issue. I have yet to hear the Leader of the Opposition make a comment on the question of one vote, one value. Perhaps it is because he knows it is a principle that should be supported. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether that is the case. The Leader of the Opposition supports one vote, one value and is embarrassed about his party taking a position that is so inconsistent with the proper application of human rights in Australia today. Members will remember that last week I picked up the Liberal Party dictionary. I will refer to the Liberal Party dictionary again today and look up the word “arrogance”. According to the Liberal Party, “arrogance” means pursuing lawful process. Dr J.M. Woollard: That is hypocrisy. Dr G.I. GALLOP: What is undemocratic about trying to take a Bill through the Parliament? Here we have it: the conservatives are caught out again. Let us look at the two issues we are pursuing. First, the Government is going to the Parliament of Western Australia. We hope that the Greens (WA) in the Legislative Council will support us in a move to give a vote to the President of the Legislative Council so that of the 34 members of that Chamber, the 18 members who support the principle of one vote, one value can exercise their vote and have it counted. That is a matter for the Greens (WA). The Government has been very open with the Greens. We would love them to support that change, so that the will of the people at the election can be reflected in the laws of Western Australia. I turn to another issue and refer again to my Liberal dictionary. The other definition of arrogance in the Liberal dictionary is to pursue one’s right to make an appeal to the High Court. The Parliament of Western Australia supports one vote, one value. The Government of Western Australia legislated to that end. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the way that was done has been ruled out. Australia has another court, called the High Court. Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(2) It is interesting that the Opposition raises the question of leadership. I find it fascinating that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party raises this issue. I have yet to hear the Leader of the Opposition make a comment on the question of one vote, one value. Perhaps it is because he knows it is a principle that should be supported. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether that is the case. The Leader of the Opposition supports one vote, one value and is embarrassed about his party taking a position that is so inconsistent with the proper application of human rights in Australia today. Members will remember that last week I picked up the Liberal Party dictionary. I will refer to the Liberal Party dictionary again today and look up the word “arrogance”. According to the Liberal Party, “arrogance” means pursuing lawful process. Dr J.M. Woollard: That is hypocrisy. Dr G.I. GALLOP: What is undemocratic about trying to take a Bill through the Parliament? Here we have it: the conservatives are caught out again. Let us look at the two issues we are pursuing. First, the Government is going to the Parliament of Western Australia. We hope that the Greens (WA) in the Legislative Council will support us in a move to give a vote to the President of the Legislative Council so that of the 34 members of that Chamber, the 18 members who support the principle of one vote, one value can exercise their vote and have it counted. That is a matter for the Greens (WA). The Government has been very open with the Greens. We would love them to support that change, so that the will of the people at the election can be reflected in the laws of Western Australia. I turn to another issue and refer again to my Liberal dictionary. The other definition of arrogance in the Liberal dictionary is to pursue one’s right to make an appeal to the High Court. The Parliament of Western Australia supports one vote, one value. The Government of Western Australia legislated to that end. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the way that was done has been ruled out. Australia has another court, called the High Court. Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
(1)-(2) It is interesting that the Opposition raises the question of leadership. I find it fascinating that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party raises this issue. I have yet to hear the Leader of the Opposition make a comment on the question of one vote, one value. Perhaps it is because he knows it is a principle that should be supported. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether that is the case. The Leader of the Opposition supports one vote, one value and is embarrassed about his party taking a position that is so inconsistent with the proper application of human rights in Australia today. Members will remember that last week I picked up the Liberal Party dictionary. I will refer to the Liberal Party dictionary again today and look up the word “arrogance”. According to the Liberal Party, “arrogance” means pursuing lawful process. Dr J.M. Woollard: That is hypocrisy. Dr G.I. GALLOP: What is undemocratic about trying to take a Bill through the Parliament? Here we have it: the conservatives are caught out again. Let us look at the two issues we are pursuing. First, the Government is going to the Parliament of Western Australia. We hope that the Greens (WA) in the Legislative Council will support us in a move to give a vote to the President of the Legislative Council so that of the 34 members of that Chamber, the 18 members who support the principle of one vote, one value can exercise their vote and have it counted. That is a matter for the Greens (WA). The Government has been very open with the Greens. We would love them to support that change, so that the will of the people at the election can be reflected in the laws of Western Australia. I turn to another issue and refer again to my Liberal dictionary. The other definition of arrogance in the Liberal dictionary is to pursue one’s right to make an appeal to the High Court. The Parliament of Western Australia supports one vote, one value. The Government of Western Australia legislated to that end. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the way that was done has been ruled out. Australia has another court, called the High Court. Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr J.M. Woollard: That is hypocrisy. Dr G.I. GALLOP: What is undemocratic about trying to take a Bill through the Parliament? Here we have it: the conservatives are caught out again. Let us look at the two issues we are pursuing. First, the Government is going to the Parliament of Western Australia. We hope that the Greens (WA) in the Legislative Council will support us in a move to give a vote to the President of the Legislative Council so that of the 34 members of that Chamber, the 18 members who support the principle of one vote, one value can exercise their vote and have it counted. That is a matter for the Greens (WA). The Government has been very open with the Greens. We would love them to support that change, so that the will of the people at the election can be reflected in the laws of Western Australia. I turn to another issue and refer again to my Liberal dictionary. The other definition of arrogance in the Liberal dictionary is to pursue one’s right to make an appeal to the High Court. The Parliament of Western Australia supports one vote, one value. The Government of Western Australia legislated to that end. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the way that was done has been ruled out. Australia has another court, called the High Court. Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: What is undemocratic about trying to take a Bill through the Parliament? Here we have it: the conservatives are caught out again. Let us look at the two issues we are pursuing. First, the Government is going to the Parliament of Western Australia. We hope that the Greens (WA) in the Legislative Council will support us in a move to give a vote to the President of the Legislative Council so that of the 34 members of that Chamber, the 18 members who support the principle of one vote, one value can exercise their vote and have it counted. That is a matter for the Greens (WA). The Government has been very open with the Greens. We would love them to support that change, so that the will of the people at the election can be reflected in the laws of Western Australia. I turn to another issue and refer again to my Liberal dictionary. The other definition of arrogance in the Liberal dictionary is to pursue one’s right to make an appeal to the High Court. The Parliament of Western Australia supports one vote, one value. The Government of Western Australia legislated to that end. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the way that was done has been ruled out. Australia has another court, called the High Court. Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
I turn to another issue and refer again to my Liberal dictionary. The other definition of arrogance in the Liberal dictionary is to pursue one’s right to make an appeal to the High Court. The Parliament of Western Australia supports one vote, one value. The Government of Western Australia legislated to that end. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, the way that was done has been ruled out. Australia has another court, called the High Court. Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Mr J.H.D. Day: It was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on, this matter has not yet gone to the High Court. I ask the member for Darling Range: who makes the ultimate judgment in Australia on the meaning of the State Constitution? Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Mr J.H.D. Day: The Supreme Court found that it was against the law. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: No. I will ask the question again: who makes the ultimate judgment as to the meaning of our Constitution? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, member for Nedlands! Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is amazing that members opposite complain and whinge about the Australian Labor Party using the proper processes of Parliament and the proper legal processes of Australia to pursue a particular objective. Shock, horror! What a terrible thing to do! We are actually pursuing the proper processes! I put on the record that the Government’s preferred course of action is to bring about change through the processes of the Parliament. We hope the Greens agree with us on that. We have every right to appeal to the High Court. The Government has received good advice that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong. We will pursue that matter in the High Court of Australia, as we have every right to do. I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
I recently attended a race meeting at Ascot Racecourse. A gentleman came up and congratulated me on my election as Premier. I am sure the member for Joondalup would have recognised his accent, because I think he might have come from the Republic of Ireland. He said it was wonderful that a Labor Government was in power in Western Australia. Do members know what he then said? Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: He said how happy he was that a Labor Government had been elected in Western Australia. Then he said that he would be much happier when the principle of one vote, one value was enshrined in our legal system. There speaks a true Irishman! The Attorney General has Celtic origins. I am proud that the great Celtic tradition of providing equality of opportunity and pursuing human rights is reflected in the quiet but strong determination of the Attorney General to bring about this change. This is not a case of the Attorney General acting in the way that members opposite have described. This is a case of the Attorney General carrying through, as a minister of this Government, the 100-year-old aspirations of the Labor Party and the view of ordinary people in Western Australia that when people vote - Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: They are opposed to it! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I regard the exercise of a vote in an election to be almost sacred - I use that word in its correct sense - because it is the embodiment of the principle of the right to participate in community life. It is a profound and important principle. Members opposite want to diminish that sacred right by giving some people in our community more of that right than is given to others. We will achieve the principle of one vote, one value on behalf of all the people, and it will not be reversed. Is John Howard reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is John Anderson reversing one vote, one value at the national level? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are any of the State Parliaments of Australia reversing one vote, one value? Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Government members: No. Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: They are not because it is a good principle, and the time has come for it to be established in Western Australia.
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.