Tuesday 16 November 2021

The Current Electoral Reform That Was A Rammed Through Lowering of Representation

Well the pictorial comparision (below) to what the WA Labor is doing is by no means over selling the over reach & determiniation to stitch up the regions. It is a 100+ year old ideological aim coming to fruition.



If you're in any doubt, or you think it's about time & very much in line with what should be done answer yourself a few questions before checking Hansard and hearing speeches on this legislation.

1) Mr Tucker MLC, the fellow elected to the Upper House hasn't actually been a bad member. If getting elected legally, lawfully by the book with 98 votes is such an issue that the rules have to change, it's been pointed out MANY times, you can prevent vastly under representative representation WITHOUT going to One Vote One Value. 
In fact the electoral reforms are only partially aimed at low vote election results...so why change the other parts that provide less regional representation?

2) If we were to adopt the identical principles and by identical...I mean identical, one vote one value to the federal upper house, The Senate guess what?
Most senators will come from NSW, Victoria & Queensland effectively 2 states could control the Senate. It's fully equal, but no equity. Do we push for equality everywhere and change the senate. Think WA would be down to just 2 Senators. That good?

3) This legislation is not rammed through, its smashed through. Why? There was no announcement it was coming, in fact the Premier kept repeating it was not on the agenda but somehow, straight after the election its a COVID Priority Bill. 
It will come into effect as soon as it is passed & made ascent but won't be used for another 3 1/2 years.
Why was this pushed through now, so it's ancient history when it delivers a gerrymander?

4) So far, the view is commonly held that the expert committee had extremely narrow terms of reference & the result the delivered is pretty much as it could ever have been with the terms of reference? Why do that?

5) The Upper House pushed for a special committee to look into it, the will of the House said no. All Labor voted not to have an Upper House Committee dig deeper into it. Why?

6) Debate has been limited. So this has small window to look at it...possibly a small window so Labor passed it regardless.

7) Calls to hold a referendum rejected. Why?

8) A motion to refer the bill to a Parliamentary Committee of Legislation was voted down. Utterly bizarre that anyone could support this when it vastly reduces the sunlight & integrity able to be poured into the matter.

9) 2.6 Million Square Kilometres of WA will have less representation than it had before and it NEVER could over vote the metro area which is around 7000 square kilometres. Now more representation in the Upper House will come from the metro area as the regional representation is reduced.
Just let that sink in then let this sink in...

Voters in an area that comprises only 0.26% of the WA land mass will control & possess more power than over 99% of the WA land mass. 
Here's the thing, that's always been the case...ALWAYS
But now its even less in the Upper House which is the House of Review.
This is a legislative priority in the COVID, State of Emergency Parliament...will come in now but can't even be used for 3 plus years.

Ideology & a Gerrymander. Nothing more

10) In the final Upper House sitting on this matter the (Labor) Parliamentary Secretary contradicted the Attorney General in the Lower house. One stated that discretionary powers of the electoral commissoner would be removed, the other say the opposite. It took ages to get that rectified and the Parliamentary Secretary in the Upper House had to conceded the opposition was correct & he was wrong. Yet another another fully clear example this legislation was rushed through as quickly as possible.

Remember the Voluntary Assisted Dying Legislation in the Last Parliament?
Labor passed in the Lower House and condemned any efforts to slow it down in the Upper House saying it needed absolutely no amendments at all. The Upper House wasn't controlled by the Labor cabinet so imagine my surprise when the Upper House found many faults which resulted in 55 amendments.

Not this time, complete control of both houses. Ideology driven over reach is on the march.

Here's the voting in the Lower House.



Its passed, here's the voting in the Upper House






Now ask yourself those questions above, try not to think about the reported rumour that a Senior Minister who bragged about something about Labor being to powerful its like North Korea.

Go back into Hansard either video or written  & take in the speeches.
Start with Hon Tjorn Sibma, then Hon Martin Aldridge. Martin cracked open this nut & shone light inside the shell & exposed some of the rot within. 



Then follow of with Hon Steve Thomas, Hon James Hayward, Hon Nick Goiran, Hon Peter Collier



No comments:

Post a Comment