❓ Question regarding electoral reform and regional representation in WA, with the Premier defending the reforms by arguing for equal vote value and criticising the opposition's stance.
AnsweredQoN 543Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ELECTORAL REFORM — REPRESENTATION — REGIONS
543. Ms L. METTAM to the Premier:
I refer to the election commentator
Antony Green's comments in relation to this government's
appalling electoral reforms —
The government has been very cute in
constantly referring to Tucker's victory as justification �
�
There are plenty of reasons for
changing the Legislative Council's regional structure, but Wilson
Tucker's victory is not one of them.
Why does the Premier keep
pretending that stripping away the representation of regional Western Australia
is about stopping minor parties when it is clearly about the long-term
political benefit to the WA Labor Party?
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please!
Member for Balcatta!
543. Ms L. METTAM to the Premier:
I refer to the election commentator
Antony Green's comments in relation to this government's
appalling electoral reforms —
The government has been very cute in
constantly referring to Tucker's victory as justification �
�
There are plenty of reasons for
changing the Legislative Council's regional structure, but Wilson
Tucker's victory is not one of them.
Why does the Premier keep
pretending that stripping away the representation of regional Western Australia
is about stopping minor parties when it is clearly about the long-term
political benefit to the WA Labor Party?
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please!
Member for Balcatta!
AnswerView source ↗
I saw Antony Green on the
television on the night of 13 March this year, a night that the member might
recall. I heard him on the television that night indicating that the
Legislative Council of Western Australia needs to be changed and that the
system in the upper house of Western Australia is totally—how would I put
it—undemocratic. That was what I recall him saying at that point in
time, and it is—it is totally undemocratic. I thought that in Western Australia,
and Australia, we lived in a democracy. Obviously, the Liberals and Nationals
do not support democracy because it is not
democratic. It is not democratic when some people's votes are worth six
times the votes of others. I listened to the member for Vasse and I explained
to her yesterday that the vote of people in Northam is worth 2.4 times the vote of someone in Augusta, in her electorate.
She seems to think that that is okay. She seems to support some of those
people that the Liberals put into Parliament in the upper house, such as Hon
Jim Chown. She seemed to support Hon Jim Chown when he was a member of the
upper house. She seems to support Hon Peter Collier, who describes women as ''sandwich
makers''. That is what the Liberal Party thinks about people in Western Australia.
We had Hon Malcolm McCusker, whom
the Leader of the Liberal Party denigrated yesterday, undertake a report into
these matters. I heard his commentary downstairs yesterday and he said that he
thought that people would be very happy if the vote of someone living in one
area versus the vote of someone living in another area was of the same value. I
have seen some of the other commentary around the place. Basically, if a party
wins more votes, it gets more members. What
is wrong with that? If a party wins a majority, it wins government. Is that not
a good thing ? If a party wins a majority in the upper house, it wins a majority
of the seats in the upper house. Is that not the way that democracy is meant to
function? I am absolutely flabbergasted by some of this commentary from people
who actually went to university but do not seem to understand the fundamental
basis of democracy—that a majority means they should win a majority of
the seats! Somehow the Liberals and Nationals have portrayed that a party
wining a minority of the vote should win a majority of the seats. How is that
democratic? In what world does that function? When shareholders vote at a shareholders'
meeting, do we say, ''If you win a minority of the votes, you should win a majority of the board members, and,
therefore, decide what happens''? No! It does not happen anywhere .
But the Liberals and Nationals seem to think that that is the way the upper
house should function. It is absolutely bizarre that people who are educated
actually think that that is a system that should exist.
We can look at all the anomalies
around the system, which I have pointed out a couple of times over the last
couple of days, whereby people who live closer to the city than other people,
by hundreds of kilometres, have a vote value that is worth more than the people
who live hundreds of kilometres away. Even if members opposite support some
sort of regional weighting, how is it justifiable that people who can get to
the city in an hour have a vote that is worth nearly three times that of people
who would take a day to drive to the city? How is that justifiable? According
to the Liberals and Nationals, vote weighting is appropriate, so why is there
not a weighting of 20, 50 or 100? If it is okay, why do we not have that? Why
do we not have the vote of people who live in the Mining and Pastoral Region
worth 100 times the vote of someone in the city? Because if we accept the
principle that, for some reason, someone's vote is worth more than
someone else's, the sky is the limit.
As we know, over time the system has
become more and more rorted. In various areas, including in the member for
Vasse's electorate, the population growth has meant that the value of
the vote of people there is declining. The member is actually acting against
the interests of her own constituency by saying that their vote is worth less
than someone else's vote. That is what the member is doing. I do not
think that the member for Vasse's heart is in it. I look at her sitting
there every day, next to the member for Cottesloe, tapping away on her phone
and showing no interest. I actually think that her heart is not in it because I
think that she knows that having an undemocratic and a completely rorted and
corrupt system in the upper house is actually wrong.
television on the night of 13 March this year, a night that the member might
recall. I heard him on the television that night indicating that the
Legislative Council of Western Australia needs to be changed and that the
system in the upper house of Western Australia is totally—how would I put
it—undemocratic. That was what I recall him saying at that point in
time, and it is—it is totally undemocratic. I thought that in Western Australia,
and Australia, we lived in a democracy. Obviously, the Liberals and Nationals
do not support democracy because it is not
democratic. It is not democratic when some people's votes are worth six
times the votes of others. I listened to the member for Vasse and I explained
to her yesterday that the vote of people in Northam is worth 2.4 times the vote of someone in Augusta, in her electorate.
She seems to think that that is okay. She seems to support some of those
people that the Liberals put into Parliament in the upper house, such as Hon
Jim Chown. She seemed to support Hon Jim Chown when he was a member of the
upper house. She seems to support Hon Peter Collier, who describes women as ''sandwich
makers''. That is what the Liberal Party thinks about people in Western Australia.
We had Hon Malcolm McCusker, whom
the Leader of the Liberal Party denigrated yesterday, undertake a report into
these matters. I heard his commentary downstairs yesterday and he said that he
thought that people would be very happy if the vote of someone living in one
area versus the vote of someone living in another area was of the same value. I
have seen some of the other commentary around the place. Basically, if a party
wins more votes, it gets more members. What
is wrong with that? If a party wins a majority, it wins government. Is that not
a good thing ? If a party wins a majority in the upper house, it wins a majority
of the seats in the upper house. Is that not the way that democracy is meant to
function? I am absolutely flabbergasted by some of this commentary from people
who actually went to university but do not seem to understand the fundamental
basis of democracy—that a majority means they should win a majority of
the seats! Somehow the Liberals and Nationals have portrayed that a party
wining a minority of the vote should win a majority of the seats. How is that
democratic? In what world does that function? When shareholders vote at a shareholders'
meeting, do we say, ''If you win a minority of the votes, you should win a majority of the board members, and,
therefore, decide what happens''? No! It does not happen anywhere .
But the Liberals and Nationals seem to think that that is the way the upper
house should function. It is absolutely bizarre that people who are educated
actually think that that is a system that should exist.
We can look at all the anomalies
around the system, which I have pointed out a couple of times over the last
couple of days, whereby people who live closer to the city than other people,
by hundreds of kilometres, have a vote value that is worth more than the people
who live hundreds of kilometres away. Even if members opposite support some
sort of regional weighting, how is it justifiable that people who can get to
the city in an hour have a vote that is worth nearly three times that of people
who would take a day to drive to the city? How is that justifiable? According
to the Liberals and Nationals, vote weighting is appropriate, so why is there
not a weighting of 20, 50 or 100? If it is okay, why do we not have that? Why
do we not have the vote of people who live in the Mining and Pastoral Region
worth 100 times the vote of someone in the city? Because if we accept the
principle that, for some reason, someone's vote is worth more than
someone else's, the sky is the limit.
As we know, over time the system has
become more and more rorted. In various areas, including in the member for
Vasse's electorate, the population growth has meant that the value of
the vote of people there is declining. The member is actually acting against
the interests of her own constituency by saying that their vote is worth less
than someone else's vote. That is what the member is doing. I do not
think that the member for Vasse's heart is in it. I look at her sitting
there every day, next to the member for Cottesloe, tapping away on her phone
and showing no interest. I actually think that her heart is not in it because I
think that she knows that having an undemocratic and a completely rorted and
corrupt system in the upper house is actually wrong.
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.