WA: State of Democracy?
One vote one value sounds like it’s a step closer to passing the Legislative Council. Although this morning the Greens said they would “hold the line that the five seats special guarantee is taken out,” by this afternoon they were happier with the “creative” proposal put forward by the Government.
The Greens have also reconsidered their attitude to gagging debate, which is a clear sign that they are serious about getting the legislation through. The price for their support is likely to be a larger upper house and therefore a lower quota. Since they’ve proven incapable of increasing their vote, it’s the only way the Greens will increase their representation.
At this stage, the details of the “creative solution” have not yet been announced, but my guess is that it will be a slight variation on the previous “large district variation” proposal — which will quite literally give land a vote. It’s by no means a perfect situation, and Gallop should never have made his gerrymander promise, but this will be a big step in the right direction.
The other missing ingredient is Alan Cadby. His support will be necessary to get the package through Parliament. I’m sure he’ll come through, but in the meantime, have a look at his fascinating speech about the Liberal Party’s so-called Northern Alliance — it’s a tale of “lies, corruption, persuasion, strongarm tactics, branch stacking and the like.”
It’s been a long time coming. If, like you say, the legislation uses the dummy voter mechanism where the district enrolment is calculated by adding a ‘notional’ voter for every 200 square kilometres of that district, it’s not the ideal solution – but it’s a lot better than what we’ve got now. Here’s why the legislation is important in the first place,
One-person-one-vote is agreed upon as a minimum condition of democracy. I believe, by the force of argument and commonsense, it follows that all votes should have the same value. It follows as night follows day….Why give a person the right to vote and then diminish its value in some way in relation to the votes of others? It is repugnant to commonsense and logic.
(Geoff Gallop, Western Australian Parliamentary Debates, 1986)
Compensating country people for their isolation by giving them a greater say in electing our government is just not right. By what fair and consistent principle can such a system of compensation be governed? Where does the compensation end?
With the demise of Rally Australia from Perth (even though it still brings in a profit) and all this dealing with the Greens, I get the feeling that there has been some seriously fishy deals going on to make them happy.
Anyone else know more?
Oh, please. The Government axed Rally Australia to secure one vote one value? Yeah, right.