Electoral Reform - "Not on our agenda" said the Premier. It was, it is. It's now.
Here's the thing, "One Vote One Value" is about equality, equal measures BUT equal is not always fair. Equity Based done properly is fair & better for everyone. At present there is a weighting in the WA Upper House, the Legislative Council to allow wider representation. If you want to learn about misrepresentation then watch the looming debate over One Vote One Value because you'll see lots of things misrepresented. In the cartoon below, on the left is what Perth Labor Party wants to go to, on the right is closer to where we are. Time to look at the twisted & skewed points that will get made.
"It was OK for the Barnett Government to control both houses of Parliament, its happened before"
Well no. It's been many years since a Coalition Government and the Barnett Government wasn't a Coalition. It was quite different. It was an "Alliance Government" with 2 conservative parties joining to form Government. But unlike a Coalition, an alliance government meant the WA Nationals ministers & MPs could cross the floor and vote with the opposition. The threat of this happening and the potential political embarassment prevented a number of Bills ever being presented to Parliament. What will happen with a Labor controlled Upper & Lower House? More on that a bit later.
"Its unfair that one person from a Fringe Party can attract 80-90 votes statewide and get elected to Parliament, that has to be stopped, it's unfair. He should be tossed out"
Well yes and no. Firstly yes it is unfair & yes this is the specific area where WA people might like to consider Electoral Reform. In this particular case there's a slim yet rapidly fading chance the gentleman might not get sworn in. He may in fact be ineligible. By the time you read this it'll be decided one way or the other. My guess is he won't be removed because then it lessens some of the need for electoral reform. That is the actual electoral reform Perth Labor really want, One Vote One Value.
Also in this case, such is the dominance of Labor in both houses whether Mr DaylightSaving Party won't hold the balance of power. In Parliament he will still be a voice in the wilderness.
Should he be tossed out? No. Not unless he's breached the laws of the WA State Election, much as I dislike it, no. Like it or not (and I don't) he's in fair & square. Has he paid the usual $50,000 to the gentleman known by many as "the Preference Whisperer"? I don't know, but even if he did, unsure its against the law. So unless there's a proven case of wrong doing, we're stuck with Mr 98 votes MLC and it'll make no difference unless he can make good points & get press.
(Late Edit - Since the above was written, Mr Tucker MLC was elected, sworn in & is sitting in the Upper House)
"You're just peeved because your team got flattened convincingly so you want to stop all progress"
Well I didn't vote Labor but my team is actually WA. I want what's best for WA and I don't believe One Vote One Value is good for WA. He's a parallel example. Lets be full equal and lets not apply FULL EQUALNESS TO SOLELY ONE AREA.
From now on everyone should pay the same set amount of Income Tax. It doesn't matter if your Twiggy Forrest, Gina Reinhart, Clive Palmer or an average worker, a low wage earner or someone on government benefits. Not a percentage, no bracket creep ever again, just have the same set figure every year.
THAT IS EQUAL, BUT IT'S NOT FAIR AND IT'S BAD FOR EVERYONE
We have percentages, tax brackets and a sliding scale for a reason. Its equity based and its fair. The same goes for the weighting in the Upper House. Now be careful because things get mixed up and you need to seperate the issues that Perth Labor is going to super glue together.
Issue #1 - Preventing fringe groups from getting elected by only attracting under a 100 votes or similar.
Issue #2 - Installing One Vote One Value
Two seperate issues, two seperate solutions. You can fix Issue #1 without bringing in Issue #2 but Perth Labor want to herald problem one as being unfair & use Issue #2 to fix it therefore reducing the regional voice. THIS IS WHERE THEY WILL TRY TO DECEIVE WA VOTERS.
Lets take the seat of Nedlands now held by Perth Labor Party. It has around the 30,000 voter level and comprises of 31 square kilometres. To put that in perspective you can jump in a taxi and ride the whole boundry before lunch time even if you stop for a few coffees.
Compare it with the seat of North West Central. It goes from the Indian Ocean to the WA Border. It comprises of just over 10,000 voters spread over 820,000 square kilometres.
Under One Vote One Value that will have to be amalgamated with say the Pilbara electorate which comprises of 23,000 voters & 292,000 square kilometres.
So close to the EQUAL number of voters per electorate (33,000 voters) but the electorate grows to 1,120,000 square kilometres. Equal numbers but unfair & grossly non equity based in size. With the amount of assets within that super electorate no MP can do the voters justice.
Granted, those 2 seats are lower house seats, not Legislative Council but you see the massive & ingrained disconnect from Perth based MPs who have no idea nor care about the vast areas in question. Already marginalised Remote Indigenous Communities are virtually hidden from representation.
Also if we're to chase One Vote One Value because it's equal, then lets be FULLY EQUAL.
The amount of police officers per electorate must ALL BE EQUAL.
The amount, size & nature of medical facilities must be the same in ALL ELECTORATES, MUST BE EQUAL
The amount of TAFE facilities must be equal and the same in ALL ELECTORATES
The amount of subsidised public transport MUST BE EQUAL in ALL ELECTORATES...bus, train, ferrry, the lot all equal.
The cost of all infrastructure to the user must ALL BE EQUAL no matter which electorate you live in. Yes your water, gas, electricity, rates must now ALL BE EQUAL where ever you live.
Mobile Connectivity...pick the very best or the very worst connected electorate and everyone must have that exact same EQUAL level of connectivity.
Ambulances? Heck, in Perth no one is more than 50 kilometres from an ambulance or fire station...same for EVERY ELECTORATE.
Getting the picture?
The picture is this, it is only the "EQUAL" that Perth Labor want to reduce regional representation in the Parliament. No other EQUAL complaint matters at all, only the political control one.
Doesn't matter how old you are, right now is the first time one political party has control of both houses & the One Vote One Value is likely to make the liklihood of that changing more remote.
Ironic really. That which they say is to bring in equality will deliver more "equality" for one party over (& AT THE EXPENSE OF) the others. Will the pendulum ever swing back? Likely yes, no one stays in power forever but it'll happen more likely after a term or terms of serious mismanagement and/or corruption or some other tumultuous term that pushes the pendulum the other way.
EQUAL IS NOT ALWAYS FAIR. ONE VOTE ONE VALUE IS A DANGEROUS WAY OF BRINGING IN UNFAIR CHANGES UNDER THE GUISE OF EQUALITY WHEN FOR REGIONAL VOTERS NO OTHER FAIR & EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH & GOVERNMENT SERVICES WILL BE INSTALLED TO ALL ELECTORATES EQUALLY. NONE.
Throw in one more point or rather one pointed question for the Pro One Vote One Value people...
Senate Representation. Victoria & NSW have the largest number of Australian citizens so do the Pro OVOV people in WA one OVOV in the Senate? If so WA loses a lot of representation in the state House of Review why not the federal House of Review? Of course it will be overly dominated by NSW & Victoria.
So is OVOV is fair & about equal representation or is that different and doen't apply if it is the same?
And while we're on this, where does the newly installed Member for Albany stand on this?
We don't know. During Pre Polling 15-20 minutes per day was her time there, she rarely spoke on her own, its was always a minister or the Premier talking, her standing behind nodding.
Will she cross the floor & vote against any bill that will reduce regional representation?
I don't think no. If she votes against the government without a conscience vote she will be expelled from the Perth Labor Party and lose her seat. She is a representative of Perth Labor in the electorate, her job is to sell whatever Labor says to Albany voters, she is denied the opportunity to represent Albany with her vote on the floor of the Parliament.
Go on, ask her. Front up and ask her. She may not know yet of course, but that's where she's at. I say may not know because I was told it was after winning preselection that she discovered there were 2 Houses of Parliament. I was told since winning the election she discovered she'd be in Perth a lot. Parliament will sit roughly 3 days a week (without extension that COVID will likely bring), then there's committee meetings, functions. I was told she was shocked and exclaimed she had small kids though and that no one had told her that. I expect there was a lot the experienced "handlers" didn't tell her. Personally I think she very unfairly was stitched up by her team of managers.
Peter Watson was speaker of the house for the last four years. He played no part in Government business & was the "impartial umpire" so we in Albany have had no real representation in debate in State Parliament for 4 years. That is set to continue and possibly worsen.
Ask the questions you need to ask. Albany is a small electorate & yet we will have no voice, both houses are controlled by whichever brutal Labor faction controls Cabinet. There is nothing equal or fair for Albany.
