❓ Barnett questions Gallop on abiding by the Supreme Court's ruling against the government's electoral bills. Gallop affirms the government's compliance, defends the 'one vote, one value' principle, and criticises the opposition's reaction.
AnsweredQoN 206Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Attorney General’s media release dated 1 February 2002 that relates to the passage of Labor’s electoral Bills through this Parliament, in which he stated that it is time to let the matter be decided once and for all by the court. Given that the Supreme Court has now ruled that the attempt by the Premier and the Attorney General to pass the two electoral Bills was unlawful, will the Premier now instruct the Attorney General to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia? Dr G.I. GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
What an extraordinary question. I was watching television on Friday night and saw the opposition parties and their friends who opposed the one vote, one value legislation drinking champagne, ripping up maps of Western Australia and acting triumphantly. That made me think of a new definition of conservatism: conservatism is the celebration of injustice. On Friday night they were celebrating an injustice. It is interesting how times have changed. On 28 November 1995, in the aftermath of the Commission on Government report, which recommended the principle of one vote, one value for Western Australia, the then leader of the Liberal Party, Richard Court, and the then Leader of the National Party, Hendy Cowan, committed the coalition to a version of one vote, one value. A joint media statement reported that the coalition parties had publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly would occur as our electoral system evolved. In principle, agreement had been reached on a system that would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent; that is called one vote, one value. The Government abides by the decision of the Supreme Court. It is very interesting that when that legislation went through Parliament, we had the majority in both Houses in Parliament. Unfortunately, in Western Australia, unlike the Senate - Mr L. Graham: You do not have the majority in the upper House. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am referring to that legislation. Mr L. Graham interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was referring to the majority on this piece of legislation. We had majority support in the upper House for this legislation and it passed through the Parliament. However, unfortunately, as a result of the rules of this place, one member of the Parliament is not entitled to a vote. We believe that anomaly must be addressed, and we will introduce legislation into the Parliament. Not only that, we will also reintroduce one vote, one value legislation because everyone in Western Australia, no matter who they are, where they live, whether they are Aboriginals or migrants or whether they live in Wanneroo or in Eyre, will be given an equal say in the election. It is shameful that members opposite would celebrate injustice in the triumphant way that they did on Friday.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: What an extraordinary question. I was watching television on Friday night and saw the opposition parties and their friends who opposed the one vote, one value legislation drinking champagne, ripping up maps of Western Australia and acting triumphantly. That made me think of a new definition of conservatism: conservatism is the celebration of injustice. On Friday night they were celebrating an injustice. It is interesting how times have changed. On 28 November 1995, in the aftermath of the Commission on Government report, which recommended the principle of one vote, one value for Western Australia, the then leader of the Liberal Party, Richard Court, and the then Leader of the National Party, Hendy Cowan, committed the coalition to a version of one vote, one value. A joint media statement reported that the coalition parties had publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly would occur as our electoral system evolved. In principle, agreement had been reached on a system that would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent; that is called one vote, one value. The Government abides by the decision of the Supreme Court. It is very interesting that when that legislation went through Parliament, we had the majority in both Houses in Parliament. Unfortunately, in Western Australia, unlike the Senate - Mr L. Graham: You do not have the majority in the upper House. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am referring to that legislation. Mr L. Graham interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was referring to the majority on this piece of legislation. We had majority support in the upper House for this legislation and it passed through the Parliament. However, unfortunately, as a result of the rules of this place, one member of the Parliament is not entitled to a vote. We believe that anomaly must be addressed, and we will introduce legislation into the Parliament. Not only that, we will also reintroduce one vote, one value legislation because everyone in Western Australia, no matter who they are, where they live, whether they are Aboriginals or migrants or whether they live in Wanneroo or in Eyre, will be given an equal say in the election. It is shameful that members opposite would celebrate injustice in the triumphant way that they did on Friday.
What an extraordinary question. I was watching television on Friday night and saw the opposition parties and their friends who opposed the one vote, one value legislation drinking champagne, ripping up maps of Western Australia and acting triumphantly. That made me think of a new definition of conservatism: conservatism is the celebration of injustice. On Friday night they were celebrating an injustice. It is interesting how times have changed. On 28 November 1995, in the aftermath of the Commission on Government report, which recommended the principle of one vote, one value for Western Australia, the then leader of the Liberal Party, Richard Court, and the then Leader of the National Party, Hendy Cowan, committed the coalition to a version of one vote, one value. A joint media statement reported that the coalition parties had publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly would occur as our electoral system evolved. In principle, agreement had been reached on a system that would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent; that is called one vote, one value. The Government abides by the decision of the Supreme Court. It is very interesting that when that legislation went through Parliament, we had the majority in both Houses in Parliament. Unfortunately, in Western Australia, unlike the Senate - Mr L. Graham: You do not have the majority in the upper House. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am referring to that legislation. Mr L. Graham interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was referring to the majority on this piece of legislation. We had majority support in the upper House for this legislation and it passed through the Parliament. However, unfortunately, as a result of the rules of this place, one member of the Parliament is not entitled to a vote. We believe that anomaly must be addressed, and we will introduce legislation into the Parliament. Not only that, we will also reintroduce one vote, one value legislation because everyone in Western Australia, no matter who they are, where they live, whether they are Aboriginals or migrants or whether they live in Wanneroo or in Eyre, will be given an equal say in the election. It is shameful that members opposite would celebrate injustice in the triumphant way that they did on Friday.
The Government abides by the decision of the Supreme Court. It is very interesting that when that legislation went through Parliament, we had the majority in both Houses in Parliament. Unfortunately, in Western Australia, unlike the Senate - Mr L. Graham: You do not have the majority in the upper House. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am referring to that legislation. Mr L. Graham interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was referring to the majority on this piece of legislation. We had majority support in the upper House for this legislation and it passed through the Parliament. However, unfortunately, as a result of the rules of this place, one member of the Parliament is not entitled to a vote. We believe that anomaly must be addressed, and we will introduce legislation into the Parliament. Not only that, we will also reintroduce one vote, one value legislation because everyone in Western Australia, no matter who they are, where they live, whether they are Aboriginals or migrants or whether they live in Wanneroo or in Eyre, will be given an equal say in the election. It is shameful that members opposite would celebrate injustice in the triumphant way that they did on Friday.
Mr L. Graham: You do not have the majority in the upper House. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am referring to that legislation. Mr L. Graham interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was referring to the majority on this piece of legislation. We had majority support in the upper House for this legislation and it passed through the Parliament. However, unfortunately, as a result of the rules of this place, one member of the Parliament is not entitled to a vote. We believe that anomaly must be addressed, and we will introduce legislation into the Parliament. Not only that, we will also reintroduce one vote, one value legislation because everyone in Western Australia, no matter who they are, where they live, whether they are Aboriginals or migrants or whether they live in Wanneroo or in Eyre, will be given an equal say in the election. It is shameful that members opposite would celebrate injustice in the triumphant way that they did on Friday.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am referring to that legislation. Mr L. Graham interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was referring to the majority on this piece of legislation. We had majority support in the upper House for this legislation and it passed through the Parliament. However, unfortunately, as a result of the rules of this place, one member of the Parliament is not entitled to a vote. We believe that anomaly must be addressed, and we will introduce legislation into the Parliament. Not only that, we will also reintroduce one vote, one value legislation because everyone in Western Australia, no matter who they are, where they live, whether they are Aboriginals or migrants or whether they live in Wanneroo or in Eyre, will be given an equal say in the election. It is shameful that members opposite would celebrate injustice in the triumphant way that they did on Friday.
Mr L. Graham interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was referring to the majority on this piece of legislation. We had majority support in the upper House for this legislation and it passed through the Parliament. However, unfortunately, as a result of the rules of this place, one member of the Parliament is not entitled to a vote. We believe that anomaly must be addressed, and we will introduce legislation into the Parliament. Not only that, we will also reintroduce one vote, one value legislation because everyone in Western Australia, no matter who they are, where they live, whether they are Aboriginals or migrants or whether they live in Wanneroo or in Eyre, will be given an equal say in the election. It is shameful that members opposite would celebrate injustice in the triumphant way that they did on Friday.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was referring to the majority on this piece of legislation. We had majority support in the upper House for this legislation and it passed through the Parliament. However, unfortunately, as a result of the rules of this place, one member of the Parliament is not entitled to a vote. We believe that anomaly must be addressed, and we will introduce legislation into the Parliament. Not only that, we will also reintroduce one vote, one value legislation because everyone in Western Australia, no matter who they are, where they live, whether they are Aboriginals or migrants or whether they live in Wanneroo or in Eyre, will be given an equal say in the election. It is shameful that members opposite would celebrate injustice in the triumphant way that they did on Friday.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: What an extraordinary question. I was watching television on Friday night and saw the opposition parties and their friends who opposed the one vote, one value legislation drinking champagne, ripping up maps of Western Australia and acting triumphantly. That made me think of a new definition of conservatism: conservatism is the celebration of injustice. On Friday night they were celebrating an injustice. It is interesting how times have changed. On 28 November 1995, in the aftermath of the Commission on Government report, which recommended the principle of one vote, one value for Western Australia, the then leader of the Liberal Party, Richard Court, and the then Leader of the National Party, Hendy Cowan, committed the coalition to a version of one vote, one value. A joint media statement reported that the coalition parties had publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly would occur as our electoral system evolved. In principle, agreement had been reached on a system that would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent; that is called one vote, one value. The Government abides by the decision of the Supreme Court. It is very interesting that when that legislation went through Parliament, we had the majority in both Houses in Parliament. Unfortunately, in Western Australia, unlike the Senate - Mr L. Graham: You do not have the majority in the upper House. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am referring to that legislation. Mr L. Graham interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was referring to the majority on this piece of legislation. We had majority support in the upper House for this legislation and it passed through the Parliament. However, unfortunately, as a result of the rules of this place, one member of the Parliament is not entitled to a vote. We believe that anomaly must be addressed, and we will introduce legislation into the Parliament. Not only that, we will also reintroduce one vote, one value legislation because everyone in Western Australia, no matter who they are, where they live, whether they are Aboriginals or migrants or whether they live in Wanneroo or in Eyre, will be given an equal say in the election. It is shameful that members opposite would celebrate injustice in the triumphant way that they did on Friday.
What an extraordinary question. I was watching television on Friday night and saw the opposition parties and their friends who opposed the one vote, one value legislation drinking champagne, ripping up maps of Western Australia and acting triumphantly. That made me think of a new definition of conservatism: conservatism is the celebration of injustice. On Friday night they were celebrating an injustice. It is interesting how times have changed. On 28 November 1995, in the aftermath of the Commission on Government report, which recommended the principle of one vote, one value for Western Australia, the then leader of the Liberal Party, Richard Court, and the then Leader of the National Party, Hendy Cowan, committed the coalition to a version of one vote, one value. A joint media statement reported that the coalition parties had publicly acknowledged that a readjustment of the current level of weighting between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the Legislative Assembly would occur as our electoral system evolved. In principle, agreement had been reached on a system that would divide the State’s electoral enrolment by 57 and allow for a variation of plus or minus 20 per cent; that is called one vote, one value. The Government abides by the decision of the Supreme Court. It is very interesting that when that legislation went through Parliament, we had the majority in both Houses in Parliament. Unfortunately, in Western Australia, unlike the Senate - Mr L. Graham: You do not have the majority in the upper House. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am referring to that legislation. Mr L. Graham interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was referring to the majority on this piece of legislation. We had majority support in the upper House for this legislation and it passed through the Parliament. However, unfortunately, as a result of the rules of this place, one member of the Parliament is not entitled to a vote. We believe that anomaly must be addressed, and we will introduce legislation into the Parliament. Not only that, we will also reintroduce one vote, one value legislation because everyone in Western Australia, no matter who they are, where they live, whether they are Aboriginals or migrants or whether they live in Wanneroo or in Eyre, will be given an equal say in the election. It is shameful that members opposite would celebrate injustice in the triumphant way that they did on Friday.
The Government abides by the decision of the Supreme Court. It is very interesting that when that legislation went through Parliament, we had the majority in both Houses in Parliament. Unfortunately, in Western Australia, unlike the Senate - Mr L. Graham: You do not have the majority in the upper House. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am referring to that legislation. Mr L. Graham interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was referring to the majority on this piece of legislation. We had majority support in the upper House for this legislation and it passed through the Parliament. However, unfortunately, as a result of the rules of this place, one member of the Parliament is not entitled to a vote. We believe that anomaly must be addressed, and we will introduce legislation into the Parliament. Not only that, we will also reintroduce one vote, one value legislation because everyone in Western Australia, no matter who they are, where they live, whether they are Aboriginals or migrants or whether they live in Wanneroo or in Eyre, will be given an equal say in the election. It is shameful that members opposite would celebrate injustice in the triumphant way that they did on Friday.
Mr L. Graham: You do not have the majority in the upper House. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am referring to that legislation. Mr L. Graham interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was referring to the majority on this piece of legislation. We had majority support in the upper House for this legislation and it passed through the Parliament. However, unfortunately, as a result of the rules of this place, one member of the Parliament is not entitled to a vote. We believe that anomaly must be addressed, and we will introduce legislation into the Parliament. Not only that, we will also reintroduce one vote, one value legislation because everyone in Western Australia, no matter who they are, where they live, whether they are Aboriginals or migrants or whether they live in Wanneroo or in Eyre, will be given an equal say in the election. It is shameful that members opposite would celebrate injustice in the triumphant way that they did on Friday.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am referring to that legislation. Mr L. Graham interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was referring to the majority on this piece of legislation. We had majority support in the upper House for this legislation and it passed through the Parliament. However, unfortunately, as a result of the rules of this place, one member of the Parliament is not entitled to a vote. We believe that anomaly must be addressed, and we will introduce legislation into the Parliament. Not only that, we will also reintroduce one vote, one value legislation because everyone in Western Australia, no matter who they are, where they live, whether they are Aboriginals or migrants or whether they live in Wanneroo or in Eyre, will be given an equal say in the election. It is shameful that members opposite would celebrate injustice in the triumphant way that they did on Friday.
Mr L. Graham interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was referring to the majority on this piece of legislation. We had majority support in the upper House for this legislation and it passed through the Parliament. However, unfortunately, as a result of the rules of this place, one member of the Parliament is not entitled to a vote. We believe that anomaly must be addressed, and we will introduce legislation into the Parliament. Not only that, we will also reintroduce one vote, one value legislation because everyone in Western Australia, no matter who they are, where they live, whether they are Aboriginals or migrants or whether they live in Wanneroo or in Eyre, will be given an equal say in the election. It is shameful that members opposite would celebrate injustice in the triumphant way that they did on Friday.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was referring to the majority on this piece of legislation. We had majority support in the upper House for this legislation and it passed through the Parliament. However, unfortunately, as a result of the rules of this place, one member of the Parliament is not entitled to a vote. We believe that anomaly must be addressed, and we will introduce legislation into the Parliament. Not only that, we will also reintroduce one vote, one value legislation because everyone in Western Australia, no matter who they are, where they live, whether they are Aboriginals or migrants or whether they live in Wanneroo or in Eyre, will be given an equal say in the election. It is shameful that members opposite would celebrate injustice in the triumphant way that they did on Friday.
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.