3165

Joint Sitting of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly Monday, 19 May 1997

SENATE VACANCY In accordance with the Standing Orders passed by both Houses of Parliament and approved by Executive Council, the members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly met in joint sitting in the Legislative Council Chamber to fill the vacancy in the representation of Western Australia in the Senate of the Federal Parliament caused by the death of Senator the Hon J. Panizza. The President of the Legislative Council (Hon Clive Griffiths), in accordance with the Standing Orders, took the Chair at 10.02 am. He was accompanied by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Mr George Strickland. ELECTION OF SENATOR THE PRESIDENT (Hon Clive Griffiths): Honourable members, this joint sitting has been called to choose a person to hold the place in the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia rendered vacant by the death of Senator John Panizza, notification of which has been reported to this Parliament by His Excellency the Governor (Major General Philip Michael Jeffery, AO, MC). I now call for nominations to fill the vacancy. MOTION - SENATE VACANCY Panizza, Senator John Forrest, Death - Lightfoot, Philip Ross, Appointment MR COURT (Nedlands - Premier) [10.03 am]: I move - That Philip Ross Lightfoot, of Donnington Springs Farm, Great Northern Highway, Chittering, Western Australia being a person who is eligible to be chosen pursuant to section 15 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act be chosen to hold the vacant place in the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament caused by the death of Senator John Forrest Panizza. I advise that I have Mr Lightfoot's assurance that if chosen he is willing to act. It was with some sadness that we heard of Senator Panizza's death on 31 January this year. John was born in March 1931 at Southern Cross, the son of Italian migrants. He was a farmer and property developer until he entered the federal political scene as a Senator for Western Australia in 1987. Prior to entering the Senate, he played an active role in local government, being a councillor of the Yilgarn Shire Council from 1975 to 1987, and shire president from 1982 to 1987. When he became a Senator in July 1987 it was the realisation of a lifetime's ambition. Senator Panizza had a strong love for both regional and rural Western Australia, and he took great pride in his Italian parentage. He had huge respect for the role migrants play in our nation. Senator Panizza did not speak English until he was nine years old, and he went on to become the first person of Italian descent elected to the Senate. During the nine and a half years he served in the Senate, he served on a number of committees, including the Senate Economics References Committee, the House Committee, the Privileges Committee, and the Selection of Bills Committee. After the 1996 federal election he was appointed the Government Whip. He was married to Coral and had four children -

Point of Order Mr BROWN: What is going on with these photographs? The PRESIDENT: What is going on? Some photographs are being taken. Mr BROWN: I did not understand this joint sitting had agreed to photographs being taken. The PRESIDENT: In this Chamber I gave approval for this to be done. Mr BROWN: I understand this is not a sitting of the Legislative Council - The PRESIDENT: I know that. Mr BROWN: It is a joint sitting, and I thought decisions in relation to joint sittings would be made by joint sittings. 3166 [COUNCIL and ASSEMBLY]

The PRESIDENT: It is generally made by joint Presiding Officers. On all the occasions on which I have participated in this procedure, someone has taken photographs to record the occasion for the benefit of members - not anybody else - who wish to have photographs. Mr BROWN: I place on the record that in the other place when photographs are to be taken, general approval of the House is sought. I find it a matter of impertinence that the joint sitting was not asked about the taking of photographs, and I find it quite offensive. The PRESIDENT: I am sorry about that. Debate Resumed Mr COURT: Senator Panizza was respected by members on both sides of the Parliament as a hard working person, a good man, and someone who genuinely had the interests of all Western Australians at heart. In my time in politics I have had the opportunity to work alongside John Panizza. We travelled throughout much of the State together, and I always admired the way in which he carried out his responsibilities. I was greatly saddened earlier this year when he passed away. Mr Thomas: You did not rush to replace him. Mr COURT: With regard to the replacement of John Panizza, the nominee from the Liberal Party for his replacement, Ross Lightfoot, was born in South Australia in 1936 and he has lived in Western Australia since 1968. He was a pastoralist and company director prior to entering Parliament. He did his national service training between 1953 and 1955, and has a great deal of experience in both the mining and pastoral industries. He was first elected to the Legislative Assembly as the member for the Legislative Assembly seat of Murchison-Eyre in 1986. He retired from State Parliament at the expiration of that term because the seat was abolished in a redistribution. He re-entered Parliament in February 1993 when he gained a position in the thirty-fourth Parliament for the Legislative Council in the North Metropolitan Region. He has always taken a very keen interest in regional and rural Western Australia and the mining industry, and has always been a fierce campaigner for Western Australia's position in the Federation. I am sure one of the main reasons he was chosen by the Liberal Party was the strong interest he has taken in regional Western Australia. He is thus a good replacement for Senator Panizza, who also had this as his theme. MR BARNETT (Cottesloe - Minister for Resources Development) [10.10 am]: I second the motion, and in so doing I congratulate Hon Ross Lightfoot on his appointment to the Senate and wish him well. I trust that he will work hard in the interests of Western Australia. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! We keep order in this place. DR GALLOP (Victoria Park - Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly) [10.11 am]: Today's proceedings provide us with a window into the affairs and attitudes of members of the contemporary Liberal Party and the State and Parliament they run. For all to witness, we see their hypocrisy on the subject of States' rights, and their cynicism and unscrupulousness in respect of the practice of politics. For them, of course, the stakes are high. It was only until 22 May that they had a clear run at moving against their class enemy, the trade union movement. It was only by selecting someone such as senator-elect Ross Lightfoot that they could guarantee the extra number in their century-old struggle against Aboriginal land rights and the understanding of history which underpins that struggle. When the stakes are high to Western Australian conservatives, the ends always justify the means. We can note that the very provision which brings us here today which ensures that a Liberal replaces a Liberal results from a 1977 referendum to change the Constitution. That change ensured that what previously had been convention became law. This change was needed because the Liberal Government in New South Wales and the National Party Government in Queensland each appointed an anti-Labor senator to replace a Labor senator, so keen were they to assist the federal Liberals in their attempts to knock off the then Whitlam Government by improperly using the Senate. As Professor Dean Jaensch said in his text,"Getting Our Houses in Order" - In supporting this constitutional change, after they had broken the convention, the Liberal and National parties succeeded in guaranteeing that the method they used to remove the Whitlam Labor Government could not be used by Labor to remove them. [Monday, 19 May 1997] 3167

To illustrate my argument about hypocrisy and cynicism, let us return to the scene of another Senate replacement - that of Fred Chaney in 1990. It took 78 days for the Parliament to replace Chaney with Ian Campbell, and at that time a certain Liberal senator had this to say - The State Parliament of Western Australia met between 1 May and 17 May. During that period it failed the test of competence and integrity. During that time it failed to have a joint sitting, a process which takes about five minutes. Whether that was incompetence, Machiavellian politics or just pure corruption, I don't know. The same senator also complained about the 41 days taken to replace Jo Vallentine in 1992 in that it denied all Western Australians their voice in the Senate. Who said this, members might ask. It was none other than the former Senator Noel Crichton-Browne! Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order!

Dr GALLOP: Despite his non-membership of the Liberal Party, Crichton-Browne seems to be directing events within the Liberal Party from his culinary bunker at the Blue Duck in Cottesloe. Crichton-Browne, the master of divisional malapportionment and number crunching, has much to complain about, being the victim of what was probably the dirtiest and most sordid campaign ever perpetrated in Western Australian intra-party politics. Even Labor's split of the 1950s and the occasion factional stoush since have been wholesome by comparison with that campaign. I suspect, Mr President, that today's events are but round one of Noel's revenge and I predict that, like the rumble in the jungle, the original king will be the ultimate winner. Let us return to today's events. Is the 108-day gap between Senator Panizza's death and today the result of incompetence, Machiavellianism or pure corruption? Not much incompetence is involved as the whole thing was meticulously planned and executed to ensure that the votes were intact for the Labour Relations Legislation Amendment Bill. Without shame or hesitation, the good senator-elect sat in this Chamber carrying out his mission to assist in the war against the old enemy. What was the consequence? More frustration and anger arose in the community, which was already incensed by the decision to push the legislation through before 22 May when the balance of numbers in the Legislative Council will change as a result of the vote last December. That anger was further exacerbated by the belligerent and hostile attitude the senator-elect took to his adversaries in the trade union movement. His two-fingered salute was a good summary of the attitude of the coalition to all who have disagreed with it since its re-election last December. Let us compare the approach of the Western Australian Liberals to that of the Labor Party in Canberra. Our Labor colleagues in Canberra showed respect for the memory of Senator Panizza and the convention of democracy by providing a pair in the Senate, despite the delicately balanced numbers of that Chamber since the defection of Senator Colston. Such behaviour is so foreign to the Liberals in this State that when we made the same offer through our leader in the Legislative Council, they did not take it up - they said that they did not trust us. Hon N.F. Moore: We don't. What about Burke taking away the pairs? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Dr GALLOP: They could not believe that politicians could act with appropriate restraint in matters relating to party fortunes. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! When I call order it means that I am trying to do something. I am trying to state that these occasions do not happen very often, and it behoves members to at least listen to members who are trying to address us on this very rare and eventful occasion. Dr GALLOP: Where there is no conscience, there is no guilt; where there is no guilt, there is no boundary between right and wrong. I will leave it to others to judge whether this process is more than straight Machiavellianism. It is unscrupulous, cynical, damaging and provocative. State rights were thrown out the door and parliamentary convention was thrown out the window. Why? It is to leave no stone unturned in the desire to destroy the effectiveness of trade unionism in this State. The only morsels of decency that one can salvage from the putrid episode is senator-elect Lightfoot's honest description of his own union 3168 [COUNCIL and ASSEMBLY] bashing intention and behaviour, and your chairing in this place, Mr President, in highly difficult circumstances last week; I wish you well in your future endeavours. The same decency cannot be said to have been shown by the Government, which has displayed contempt for the people and our system by refusing to produce any justification for the decision to ram the Labour Relations Legislation Amendment Bill through Parliament before 22 May. Also it has not produced any reasonable account of its decision to legislate on the basis of the 1995 Bill when the Premier justified the early election last year by saying that the legislative program for the first term in office had been completed - I emphasise that point.

As a result of these gaping accountability holes, we now must ensure that a taxpayer funded re-education campaign is conducted via the media. One might ask: How many incubators could be funded for King Edward Memorial Hospital with that money? This misplaced loyalty shown by senator-elect Lightfoot in the face of such unscrupulous behaviour and mismanagement augurs well for the role he will play in the Senate on behalf of the "True Believers" in the Western Australian Liberal Party. Indeed, when I reflect on the whole episode, I am reminded of one of John Boyle O'Reilly's poems. O'Reilly was transported to Western Australia in 1867-68 for his part in Fenian activity, but he escaped to the United States of America aboard a whaling vessel. He wrote - Nation of sun and sin, thy flowers and crimes are red, And thy heart is sore within, While the glory crowns thy head. Land of the songless birds, What was thine ancient crime, Burning through lapse of time, Like a prophet's cursing words? HON TOM STEPHENS (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council) [10.20 am]: In a few moments, we will appoint a former member of this House to the Senate. This former member, Mr Ross Lightfoot, will then have the unique distinction of having served in three Houses of Parliament in Australia: The Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia, and the federal Senate. However, election to the Senate brings with it the responsibility to serve all Western Australians. Mr Ross Lightfoot is charged with the task not just of representing those who vote for the Liberal Party and not just of serving the interests of the dominant Crichton-Browne faction of the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party, but of serving Western Australians of all colours, creeds and races. We know that our nation and State face major issues that must be tackled with wisdom, integrity and sensitivity. The Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party has chosen Mr Lightfoot as its representative to tackle these sensitive issues. Standing out among these issues that loom on the national stage is the legislative debate that will take place in the Senate on native title. In my view, Mr Lightfoot will fulfill very capably his role in the Senate as a representative of the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party. He is the embodiment of what it means to be a Western Australian Liberal. On the occasion of the last joint sitting, the then Leader of the Opposition in this place, Hon George Cash, rose from this chair to draw on the media commentary and public record of the personalities that were involved in the changeover of senator at that time. I will take a leaf from that book and that precedent and draw upon some of the media commentary on, and public record of, what Mr Lightfoot has said about the important and sensitive issues of race, Aboriginal people and native title in order to demonstrate why Mr Lightfoot will fulfill that role so capably. In an article in the Sunday Times of 10 October 1993, Mr Lightfoot criticised the Most Reverend Peter Carnley, Anglican Archbishop of Perth, for allowing Aboriginal dancing in St George's Cathedral during a celebration to welcome South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Mr Lightfoot is quoted in that article as saying that it was inappropriate to elevate "pagan Aboriginal dancing in the Anglicans' holiest shrine in Western Australia to appease a black African cleric". I attended that ceremony with the Premier, and neither the Premier nor I saw anything inappropriate in that event. Mr Court: And I said so publicly. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a pity more of the Premier's colleagues have not distanced themselves from this member, and it is a pity that the Premier and his party have sought to endorse Mr Lightfoot for the Senate, despite Mr Lightfoot's having never disowned those views. In November 1993, Mr Lightfoot described Aboriginal people as uncivilised and "only the bottom colour of the civilisation spectrum". In May 1995, and again just two weeks ago, Mr Lightfoot went on record as expressing [Monday, 19 May 1997] 3169 opposition to the proposal to teach Aboriginal studies in our schools. He denounced the proposal as preposterous, because it would mean that we would be forced to study a culture that some people found distasteful. In 1995, Mr Lightfoot mounted an attack on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission for raising an agenda for recognition, rights and reform for Aboriginal people, and for the implementation of the social justice package. In particular, Mr Lightfoot attacked efforts towards Aboriginal self-determination. At the same time, Mr Lightfoot was advocating the case for self-determination for Western Australians that would lead to their being involved in secession from the Commonwealth of Australia. Mr Lightfoot also attacked the use of the Aboriginal flag as divisive. In 1995, Mr Lightfoot claimed that "because of the freakish way that Aboriginal people are born, they want special treatment". Mr Lightfoot is quoted in The Australian Financial Review of Friday, 9 May as saying that - Aboriginal people have enough rights in Australia as it is now. . . The mere fact that some of their forbearers were here first with no title or no ownership of land hardly validates them owning a significant part of Australia . . . Aboriginal people in their native state are the most primitive people on earth, . . . Mr Lightfoot said also that he was vehemently opposed to the teaching of Aboriginal culture in schools. He also challenged the aboriginality of prominent Kimberley Aboriginal activist and Executive Director of the Kimberley Land Council, Mr Peter Yu. The Australian Financial Review journalist Damon Kitney reports - Mr Lightfoot's views are even more extreme than the ones which had Ms Pauline Hanson dumped from the Liberal Party prior to the last Federal election. Mr Lightfoot holds open the prospect of continuing his role as a campaigner for Western Australian secession. Indeed, during last year's gun debate, he involved himself in attacking the bipartisan national policies on the gun issue. He has persistently attacked the High Court and its judges since its 1992 Mabo decision. Through these attacks, Mr Lightfoot has displayed that he is a wilful and persistent constitutional vandal. Mr Lightfoot has championed a return to the right of appeal to the Privy Council, as if to cloak himself in the mantle of a traditionalist. On 28 November 1995, Mr Lightfoot told this House that the reason this State has done so well is that for 105 years, this House, the Legislative Council, has represented the conservative element of politics in this State. Mr Lightfoot has labelled Mr Murray, the Editor of The West Australian - which he has described regularly as "a socialist rag" - as an "entrenched socialist bigot". Over recent years, some Ministers in the Court Government have taken gentle steps to distance themselves from Mr Lightfoot whenever his views have been in the public limelight, but clearly this has had more to do with their concern that one of their number has been exposed for holding these views than with any embarrassment about these views embodying the body politic of Western Australian Liberals. The PRESIDENT: Order! I direct to the attention of the people in the President's Gallery that the reading of newspapers in this place is absolutely prohibited; in the President's Gallery, it is even more serious. I recommend that the person reading the newspaper cease doing it. An opposition member: It is the senator! Hon TOM STEPHENS: Members opposite complained not that Mr Lightfoot held these views, but that these views had become obvious. Only last week in this House, I addressed a question to the Leader of the Government in this place, Hon Norman Moore, and in his answer he specifically declined to distance himself from or condemn Mr Lightfoot's recent restatement of some of his offensive views about Aboriginal people. Indeed, Mr Lightfoot will now be rewarded with the position of Western Australian Liberal senator because of, not in spite of, his views. On the last occasion when we sat in this place in similar circumstances, Hon George Cash echoed the call of the then Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly for an Act of Parliament to better set out the process for the appointment or replacement of a Senator. Nothing could better illustrate the need for that call to be acted upon and for some time line to be set for the replacement of a Senator than the charade that we have just gone through. The delay and the reasons for it - the Liberal Party infighting and the indecent obsession of the State Government to get its controversial and disruptive labour relations legislation through the Legislative Council - illustrate further how closely Mr Lightfoot is allied to the dominant faction of the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party. 3170 [COUNCIL and ASSEMBLY]

Next Tuesday, 27 May, Australian Aboriginal people in particular will celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the successful carriage of the referendum question that altered the Australian Constitution to give the Federal Parliament the indisputable power to make laws in respect of Aboriginal Australians. What a tragic irony it is that this important anniversary coincides with the arrival in Canberra of the Western Australian Liberals' gift to the nation in the form of Mr Lightfoot. Mr Lightfoot appears determined to wage hand to hand combat in his war against the interests of Aboriginal Australians. He appears resolute to undo the good that has been done in the 30 years of federal intervention in the interests of Aboriginal people. He thereby will do a great disservice to all Western Australians. Mr Lightfoot is an extremist - on social issues, on racial issues, on constitutional issues, on federalism, on secession, on life, on politics. He represents living on the edge of the mainstream. Yet he has become the embodiment of the desire of the Western Australian Liberal Party to fill the vacancy in the Senate. Mr Lightfoot faithfully represents the extremist approach of the party opposite. We all know the Senate has a very important part in our federal system of government. We also know of an insult to a previous Senate: In about 40AD, the Roman Emperor Caligula denigrated the Roman Senate by bestowing a consulship on his horse! It appears the Liberal Party has selected Hon Ross Lightfoot as a deliberate act of denigration of the Senate, which is an important part of the federal constitutional process, by giving to the Federal Parliament someone who attacks the High Court of Australia, who persistently attacks the Federal Government and whose party has most deliberately set out to attack this Parliament and this Chamber in recent days. The nomination of Hon Ross Lightfoot to the Federal Parliament shows that he is in every way the embodiment of the Western Australian Liberal Party. MR RIPPER (Belmont - Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly) [10.31 am]: The Opposition will, without any enthusiasm whatsoever, support this motion because of our support for constitutional conventions. We will do so, despite the tradition on the conservative side of politics, nationally and in this State, of seeking to rort the numbers in upper Houses, in the Senate and in the Legislative Council. I will not traverse that issue any further because one of my colleagues will say a little more about constitutional conventions. I will talk about what the preselection by the Liberal Party of Hon Ross Lightfoot says about the Liberal Party. In short, the Liberal Party in Western Australia is dominated by extremists. Twice those opposite tried to show they were not extremists. Twice they tried to show Hon Ross Lightfoot did not have the support of the majority of delegates under the Liberal Party rules, and twice they failed. I remember Hon Ross Lightfoot from my first year in the Legislative Assembly. I remember his indiscretions then. I remember his letter to the then Secretary of State of the United States, George Shultz, urging that Americans dump subsidised wheat on Australian farmers' wheat markets. I remember that act, which I regard as treasonable to the interests of this country and to our farmers. I remember his indiscretion when he visited China for a commercial purpose, using public funds. However, I am prepared to believe a leopard can change its spots, so I think it is important that we look at more recent evidence. Hon N.D. Griffiths: A leopard does not change its spots. Mr RIPPER: I have looked at some information in The West Australian and in The Australian Financial Review. As my colleague says, it is apparent that Hon Ross Lightfoot is no leopard because there has been no change whatsoever in his extremism. On gun control he stated that a country that gives away its civilian fire power or the ability of civilians to defend themselves is a country that emasculates itself. Even Ted Drane would be embarrassed by that comment. I am amazed that the Liberal Party has preselected someone who, in the aftermath of the Tasmanian tragedy, has a view like that. My colleague Hon Tom Stephens has already pinched some of the best quotations from The West Australian. Hon Tom Stephens: I am sorry, mate. Mr RIPPER: I am sure one is worth repeating. Hon Ross Lightfoot described the Editor of The West Australian as an entrenched socialist bigot. Hon E.J. Charlton: What would you call him? Mr RIPPER: That is not the view that those on our side have when we examine the coverage of our initiatives in Parliament. Hon E.J. Charlton: A lover of the Liberal Party! The PRESIDENT: Order! As I say to members in this place, we do not have to like what members say in here and we do not have to believe them; but we do have to listen to them. Mr RIPPER: The most recent evidence of the extreme views of Hon Ross Lightfoot was reported in The Australian Financial Review on 9 May 1997. [Monday, 19 May 1997] 3171

Mr Bradshaw: We have heard this already. Mr RIPPER: Members have not heard it all. Hon Ross Lightfoot is so prolific, so extreme and so vociferous, that we will not run out of quotations until at least midday. Hon N.D. Griffiths: Tomorrow! Mr RIPPER: I will look briefly at some of the remarks made by Hon Ross Lightfoot and reported in The Australian Financial Review on 9 May 1997. His remarks about Aboriginal people were offensive. In the article he is reported as saying - The mere fact that some of their forebears were here first with no title or no ownership of land hardly validates them owning a significant part of Australia. He completely rejects the concept of native title which, even reluctantly, many other members of the Liberal Party have accepted. Hon Kim Chance: Not to mention British colonial law. Mr RIPPER: That is right, although apparently he is in favour of appeals to the Privy Council. It is ironic that this article in The Australian Financial Review was published in the same week as the Minister for Education launched a program to promote Aboriginal studies in our schools and, as I understand it, he told the gathering at the launch that he would like to see every school teach Aboriginal studies and would consider making it mandatory, if schools did not take it up. In fact, the Minister offered to write to schools encouraging them to take up these studies. Mr Graham: He seconded the election. Mr RIPPER: That is right. He seconded the election of a man who is vehemently opposed to the teaching of Aboriginal studies in our schools. There is no doubt Hon Ross Lightfoot is an extremist on race issues. Other words could be used, but I will content myself with that one. He must be an embarrassment to the Minister for Education and to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs; yet, the Minister for Education is placed in the inglorious position of having to second this nomination. Perhaps the Minister might like to comment on whether he supports the views of Hon Ross Lightfoot on Aboriginal education. There is silence. Mr Barnett: I have always made my views on Aboriginal affairs quite public. They are on the public record. Mr RIPPER: The Minister does not support the views of Hon Ross Lightfoot. The trouble is that the Minister for Education does not have the numbers in the Liberal Party; neither does the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The Liberal Party is the party of Hon Ross Lightfoot and it is demonstrably the party of the extremists. I turn now to the issue of State rights. I consider myself to be an Australian first and a Western Australian second. I do not think Hon Ross Lightfoot can say the same. An article in The Australian Financial Review reports him as saying about secession - It may not be practical if you come from the Eastern States, but it is very practicable if you happen to be a Western Australian and getting a raw deal from the east. He is not going to Canberra as an Australian, but as someone who wants to see Western Australia secede. He has even given some thought to the defence policy. I think it is a bit laughable. I would hate to see him as Minister for defence in the Government of Western Australia. He states - If WA was to go it alone, we would obviously invite in the Americans or the United Kingdom to offer them defence bases here which would be co-managed. Hon N.D. Griffiths: Contracted out. Mr RIPPER: I can imagine the bemusement of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton in receiving such an approach from Hon Ross Lightfoot. I am an Australian first and a Western Australian second. Can members of the Liberal Party say the same? I do not think so. When members opposite endorse someone like Ross Lightfoot they cannot say that. They have endorsed him not once, but twice. Their endorsement of him is symbolic of the state of the Liberal Party in Western Australia. To a certain extent the Liberal Party is a victim of malapportionment. The irony is that the Liberal Party has supported malapportionment decade after decade, because it has given it control of the upper House of Parliament 3172 [COUNCIL and ASSEMBLY] for 106 years; and it has also applied malapportionment within its own ranks. That is the primary reason that Ross Lightfoot beat Michael Huston by that very small margin. Mr President, I am not an expert on the Liberal Party; you would probably know more about it than I. However, each division of the Liberal Party is represented by a certain number of delegates in Liberal Party forums - with one exception: The Kalgoorlie division is represented by three separate subdivisions, each with the same number of delegates as a normal division. The Kalgoorlie division of the Liberal Party is over-represented three times. That three times over-representation is one of the reasons that Ross Lightfoot won the preselection. The Noel Crichton-Browne machine is still powerful in the Kalgoorlie division. Its power dates from the days when he was a mining warden in that area. Mr Marlborough: He was in Marble Bar ripping off little miners. Mr RIPPER: His power in that three times over-represented division dates from those days. It is interesting that the Liberal Party, which has foisted malapportionment on the State in its own political interest, is now hoist with its own petard and forced to send Ross Lightfoot to Canberra as a symbol of everything that the Liberal Party stands for in Western Australia. Hon N.F. Moore: Just count the number of members on this side of the House and compare that with the number over there. That indicates what the people think. Mr RIPPER: Despite all its efforts to convince people otherwise, the Liberal Party is the party of Noel Crichton-Browne. It is not the party of Ross McLean, John Hyde, the member for South Perth, the member for Churchlands or the member for Cottesloe; it is the party of Noel Crichton-Browne and Ross Lightfoot. All the attempts of members opposite to prove otherwise have come to nought. Hon N.F. Moore: It is all these members over here - count them! That is what the people of Western Australia think. We can hardly see you over there. Mr RIPPER: Even David Honey, the late convert to so-called moderation, has been forced to throw in the towel and endure this penetrating analysis by Mr Crichton-Browne - The party's membership is the lowest it's been in 30 years, the head office of the party is a sheltered workshop, the finances are in an appalling shape and morale is worse than you could possibly imagine. That is the party that has endorsed Ross Lightfoot, and no wonder. It is not that the moderates are anything to write home about. Their moderation is grossly overrated; after all, one of those so-called moderates is Paul Filing. After drawing enormous support from ethnic communities, in particular the Croatian community in Perth, Paul Filing brought to Perth Pauline Hanson, with her anti-immigrant and anti-ethnic views, and squired her around to boost his own profile. One could not find a better example than that of cynical opportunism and betrayal of a constituency.

We see an interesting contrast between the Liberal Party prior to the election and after the election. Before the election Noel Crichton-Browne was expelled from the Liberal Party, Hon Norman Moore was shifted out of the Education portfolio, the member for Riverton was shifted out of the Health portfolio, the second wave of industrial legislation was put on hold and an agreement was reached with the Trades and Labor Council that there would be no further industrial legislation introduced without the agreement of the TLC. What do we see after the election? Noel Crichton-Browne is back in charge; the member for Riverton, the Minister for Labour Relations, is let off the leash; Ross Lightfoot is preselected for the Senate; and David Honey has thrown in the towel. We support this motion, but with no enthusiasm. Ross Lightfoot will not be a good representative of this State in Canberra. In fact, he will embarrass this State and its people. The one saving grace is that the false, moderate and reassuring face put up by Liberal Party at the last election has been resoundingly discredited. We see now the true face of the Liberal Party. I will make one further comment which you might find apposite, Mr President. This is the last hooray for the old conservative-dominated Legislative Council. One hundred and six years of history end with this joint sitting today. What an inglorious end to 106 years of conservative domination. The conservatives will never again in the history of this State have control of the upper House of this Parliament. This is their last week and they are sending to Canberra this extremist on race and social issues and on secession as one of their last acts. It caps a week in which members opposite have rushed through legislation to avoid the will of the people, in which we have seen the unprecedented use of the guillotine and the gag. Hon N.F. Moore: Rubbish; you are a silly man. [Monday, 19 May 1997] 3173

Mr RIPPER: The 106 years of inglorious conservative rule has been capped by this disgraceful preselection which the Liberal Party has foist on this State. Point of Order Mr THOMAS: It appears that the Public Gallery is not open. I understand that a number of members of the public who will be represented by Hon Ross Lightfoot wish to see these proceedings. Is the Public Gallery open, and if not why not? The PRESIDENT: They are not open. Mr THOMAS: That is a disgrace, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: Do you want me to answer this question? Mr THOMAS: Yes, please. The PRESIDENT: The member for Cockburn asked whether the Public Gallery was open and by what authority it was not open. It is not open because the Speaker and I decided that it should not be open, bearing in mind the happenings of last week. Certain people were offered an opportunity to come into the President's Gallery and they refused that invitation. It is not a point of order, but members are entitled to an explanation. Mr THOMAS: This meeting is taking place behind closed doors. The PRESIDENT: No, it is not. Mr THOMAS: It is if the doors up there are closed and people want to come in. Debate Resumed HON PETER FOSS (East Metropolitan - Attorney General) [10.47 am]: It is fascinating to hear that one of the major accusations against Hon Ross Lightfoot as to his unsuitability is that he has supposedly been chosen by a faction. I am looking across the Chamber at a party that prides itself on its factions and is currently completely run by one side of the party - the left wing has been totally eliminated. It is quite fascinating, because the result of that has been - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon PETER FOSS: Members opposite would like us to sit quiet while they are talking, but it is interesting to see their reaction when I talk about their factions, because the people in this Chamber know that the result has been that they have ended up with a couple of clowns in charge of the Labor Party. Even their own members cannot stop themselves from saying that out in the corridor. Mr Marlborough: Do you have your braces on today? Are they keeping your head in place? Hon PETER FOSS: Does the member for Peel have a problem? He was able to keep quiet earlier on. The PRESIDENT: Order! When I call order the member for Peel must stop interjecting. Fortunately for the member for Peel, we are working under the Legislative Assembly's standing orders today. He has a great advantage over me, because I have never read them. The question that I am asking is whether there are any other nominations. I have been very tolerant of the scope that some people have taken in order to get around to telling us that there are not any other nominations. I have been expecting other nominations because of some of the comments that have been made. However, Attorney General, I do not want a discussion on anything else other than why this nomination should or should not be agreed to. It has nothing to do with the structure of an organisation. Hon PETER FOSS: It was being suggested - and I am trying to prove it is not valid, although I may be proving that it is valid - that a nomination by a faction in some way leads to incompetence. First, I do not believe that Hon Ross Lightfoot has been appointed by a faction - although I accept that, in the case of members opposite, a nomination by a faction could be seen to be leading to incompetence! That seems to be the view of the left wing faction members in this Chamber about the people who have ended up in charge of their party in this place! I accept that can, on some occasions, be a good example of why nominations by factions lead to incompetence, and to competent people losing their jobs. For two reasons, that does not apply to Hon Ross Lightfoot: He has not been nominated by a faction - and even if he had, it does not lead to incompetence, although in the case of members opposite it has! Several members interjected. 3174 [COUNCIL and ASSEMBLY]

The PRESIDENT: Order! Member for Peel, I do not know whether the member has a problem with his hearing, but I could understand it if he has, because he is making too much noise. I am sure that he cannot even hear himself, because the noise is so loud. He should cut it out. Hon PETER FOSS: Another suggestion regarding why Hon Ross Lightfoot may be an unsuitable person was that he has participated in a constitutional ramp. The misconstruction of the events that have taken place recently is extreme. A suggestion by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly recently was that for some reason this side of the House had been dismissed by the people. Of the 34 members in this House, 17 belong to this side of the House - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon PETER FOSS: I will deal with that: If members opposite think that the people of Western Australia have spoken, at least this Government received the support of half the people. No-one else got anywhere near that. Members opposite did not receive even one-third of the vote, and that is the authority with which they speak! Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon PETER FOSS: Members opposite do not like it! They cannot sit there and take it. If it were not for the rules of our Constitution which say that the President cannot vote, and that we decided we would support a member from our side as President, members opposite would find that we would still control this Chamber. It is not a matter of saying just that the people have spoken. They have spoken to members opposite and told them that they are not worth one-third. That is not a very nice thing. Members opposite should not speak to us as if they have some authority or mandate from the people. The people who have mandate in this House, before and after 22 May, happen to represent the majority party. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! I want the Attorney General to return to the subject, and to stop inciting people. Hon PETER FOSS: Mr President, I was speaking about the fact that it is legitimate for this House to behave that way. Mr Thomas: Another House has been elected since then! Hon PETER FOSS: Not only is that interjection unruly but also it is irrelevant. Mr Thomas: It is accurate. Mr Brown: Do you want to put on the wig as well? Perhaps we could all go and leave it to you! The PRESIDENT: Order! I am fairly easy-going. I have given members plenty of leeway, but my colleagues have given me a crash course on this and I am formally advising the member for Cockburn not to continue to interject. He does not have to like what the Attorney General is saying, and he does not have to believe it, but he must listen. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason given for suggesting that Hon Ross Lightfoot is an unsuitable person is that he has participated in an improper process in this place in the past few weeks. I would like to emphasise that what has happened in this Chamber, and what has been improper, has been the delay in the form of procedural motions which have prevented the proper discussion of a Bill which quite properly could have been heard in a short time. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Point of Order Hon MARK NEVILL: That comment is a reflection on the procedures of this House. The Attorney General should know better. The PRESIDENT: So much noise is being made that I do not know what the Attorney General is saying. However, Attorney General, address the subject matter and keep off the extraneous matters. The Attorney is not helping matters. Debate Resumed [Monday, 19 May 1997] 3175

Hon PETER FOSS: Had it not been for Hon Ross Lightfoot's carrying out his responsibilities in dealing with legislation before the House, the proceedings of this Chamber would have been badly disrupted not only by the tactics adopted by members opposite on the floor but also by their active encouragement of what can be described as disgraceful behaviour in the gallery which almost prevented this Parliament from continuing. It has been suggested that it was incitement, and many members opposite did incite that behaviour. It was purely lip service for them to say that it was disgraceful behaviour. It was clear that their behaviour was such that they wished to disrupt Parliament. If it was not for the continuing presence of Hon Ross Lightfoot, they might have got away with it. On the question of the supposed pair, when we made inquiries about the pair we found that just like any other pair in this House it could have been called off at any time. We had that experience before! When we inquired further regarding whether it was a pair, we found that it was not. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Bob Thomas does not have to like what the Attorney is saying - Hon Bob Thomas: And I do not believe it - The PRESIDENT: The member does not have to do that either, but he must behave himself. He knows that, and he is usually very moderate. Hon Bob Thomas: The Attorney is wrong and he cannot get away with it. The PRESIDENT: The member has already said that. Hansard has already recorded it. The Attorney General will continue. Hon PETER FOSS: Hon Ross Lightfoot is prepared to believe in a cause and to support it - even with personal inconvenience to himself. Our leader had made the appropriate inquiries and found that the pairs could be called off at any time. Even when we spoke to the member who was supposedly to support it, he indicated the circumstances under which it would be withdrawn and that at any stage there was a capacity to withdraw it. It became clear that, given the opportunity, members opposite were prepared to abuse the process of this House so that legislation which could legitimately progress would be defeated - notwithstanding their defeat at the last election and their decimation in this House. It is nice to know that members opposite did not succeed. However, the hypocrisy and the general way in which they pretended to observe the niceties of the House and of our Constitution has done them no credit. I have never seen an Opposition behave in that way. Even when we had the numbers in this House and the capacity to defeat legislation we always behaved like a responsible Opposition. Unfortunately, members opposite took control of the proceedings through force. They allowed that behaviour in the galleries and encouraged it from the floor. That was disgraceful. Those people have lectured us on two aspects: The Constitution - but they disrupted the Constitution - and the idea of factions, and that must be placed on the record. I am glad the wonderful statements of members opposite on factions are on record, because we have seen the way the Labor Party has been distorted by factions. It is not one party, but three or four. I can see why members opposite consider it to be a criticism for us to talk about factions. If they have a good look at themselves they will understand why the criticism should be addressed to them. HON N.D. GRIFFITHS (East Metropolitan) [11.01 am]: I was interested when Hon Peter Foss rose because I thought he had senatorial aspirations. Many of us would prefer him to go to the Senate rather than Hon Ross Lightfoot, whom we know represents the mainstream of the Liberal Party. When the Attorney General was speaking, I wondered what he was on about. I asked Hon Tom Stephens to give me a copy of the motion. I will read the words of the matter we are discussing so that the House will understand the total irrelevance of the honourable member's speech. Mr Bradshaw: You should show it to the others on your side who spoke. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: Can the member read? Mr President, a few moments ago you announced that a "joint sitting has been called to choose a person to hold the place in the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia rendered vacant by the death of Senator John Panizza, notification of which has been reported to this Parliament by His Excellency the Governor". The unfortunate death of the late senator occurred 108 days ago. Notification of the vacancy was provided by His Excellency the Governor in February this year. We are gathered here today to carry out our legal obligation to the people of Western Australia and the people of Australia, not to engage in some silly, hypocritical diatribe, which is a bit rich coming from a certain member opposite. When considering this law-making process, we have to put it into context, because it has a relatively short, but meaningful, history. I regret to say that there are people who rat on their constitutional obligations. When they do so they are future-eaters; they attack the future of the people of Australia. They are threatening civil discord. 3176 [COUNCIL and ASSEMBLY]

Hon N.F. Moore: Who are you talking about? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I am talking about you. You do not care about the consequences - Hon E.J. Charlton: Have you suffered a memory loss since last seek? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: Hon Eric Charlton cannot recall a thing; sit down. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon E.J. Charlton: You were inciting that mob of ratbags up in the gallery. The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member will direct his comments to the Chair and ignore those people. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: Certainly, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: I am starting to get very angry. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: We are engaging in this operation of the law and are carrying out our proper legal obligations to the Australian people because of an event which occurred on 21 May 1977. It is interesting to note that the twentieth anniversary of that event occurs this Thursday, the last day before the composition of this House changes. That fact and the referendum that was passed on 21 May 1977 are linked, because in each case there was a thread of constitutional impropriety. The Australian people overwhelmingly voted for the constitutional change on 21 May 1977. A minority disagreed. There was a secret ballot; I suspect I know how some voted. That decision was made because of the constitutional improprieties that occurred in 1975. The people of Australia, including Western Australia, were able to reflect on those constitutional improprieties, and they decided that the right course of action was to set in law that which had formerly been carried out by a generation as a matter of convention. They decided that had to be done because the Liberal and National Parties of Australia could not be trusted. They could not be trusted because all they are concerned about is power at all costs. In 1975, those parties threw away the rule book. They have again thrown away the rule book in Western Australia in 1997. On 16 November 1975, the day after Malcolm Fraser announced that he would have his new rubber stamp, the Senate, defer consideration of the appropriation Bills - delay the passage of Supply in the Parliament of Australia - a former senator, a former member of the House of Representatives and a former Premier of South Australia, Steele Hall of South Australia, said of those opposite - this is the reason that that constitutional referendum was passed and this is the reason the people of Australia made it law that we do today what we are doing whereas formerly it was a matter of convention - that they have marched on a sleazy road to power over a dead man's corpse. Those opposite have marched in time according to the will of each Chamber which they dominate, and they have taken their time to fill a Senate vacancy that should have been filled a long time ago. In doing that they have acted with constitutional impropriety. There are many who share my view that constitutional propriety is like justice. If justice is delayed, it is denied. The Government has delayed constitutional propriety and, in so doing, it has denied it. In 1975, the actions of two Governments, a Liberal-National Government in New South Wales and a National-Liberal Government in Queensland, corrupted the verdict of the people of Australia in the election which took place on 18 May 1974. The twenty-third anniversary of that election was yesterday. We are having a few anniversaries over the next few days. It has a bit of resonance when we talk about constitutional impropriety. We note the 1967 referendum and the anniversary of 18 May 1974, and the passing of the referendum on 21 May 1977. When that absolute corruption of the people's verdict took place in 1974, those corrupt Governments in New South Wales and Queensland were better than the one opposite because they had a better sense of time; they did not delay. The first replacement was Cleaver Bunton for then Senator Murphy. Senator Murphy's vacant position in the Senate was announced on 9 February 1975. I do not know whether many members remember Premier Lewis of New South Wales; his name is remembered in the pages of infamy. He got around to having the Parliament of New South Wales nominate Cleaver Bunton on 27 February 1975. I move now to the real case of corruption, the death of Senator Bertie Milliner, a Labor Senator for Queensland. He died on 30 June 1975 but the corrupt National-Liberal Party regime of Bjelke-Petersen was able to nominate a replacement on 3 September 1975. At least the constitutional sleaziness of the party in 1975 was faster on its feet than those opposite. However, they have something in common. In 1975 the actions of those corrupt Governments corrupted the result of the election of 1974. The delay that has occurred with respect to this senatorial appointment and the constitutional impropriety involved in it prevent the wishes of the people expressed in the 1996 election from being carried out. The people of Western Australia wanted a full contingent in the Senate. I accept, but regret, that they chose more Liberal than Labor representatives. However, I value democracy more than that point, which is trite. The people of Western Australia deserved to be represented in Canberra before now, and [Monday, 19 May 1997] 3177 to that extent they have been denied. That is wrong. They have in common the following: Those breaches of convention in 1975 undermined the Constitution. In doing so, they created a climate for civil discord. Although they did not need to because they had the word of Hon Tom Stephens on pairs, members opposite delayed a senatorial replacement for the purpose of ramming through unprecedented and nasty legislation. Just as the Fraser Ministry was forever affected by the taint of constitutional corruption, members opposite have guaranteed they will be affected by the taint attached to them for engaging in this constitutional impropriety. Dr Gallop: Are you aware that John Howard wrote an article post the Fraser Government, and argued that the whole Fraser Government was ultimately destabilised by the circumstances in which he came to power? Ultimately it meant it could not deliver good policy. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I am aware of that and I agree with it. Dr Gallop: That is where members opposite are now. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: Because members opposite have engaged in constitutional impropriety, they lack moral authority. They have taken their time in the appointment of a senator. Their time is passing; they have one more term and the sooner it ends, the better. I wish the Government would call another early election. MS MacTIERNAN (Armadale) [11.14 am]: Mr President - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Ms MacTIERNAN: I am sad to see that during my absence you, Mr President, have not been able to get the Minister for Transport into better order but better luck, George. I rise to address the question the President asked very directly. I support the nomination of Ross Lightfoot to the Senate and do so because he is the nominee of the Liberal Party. It is a very important principle that the community should get the representative it has elected, although I am not sure it is getting the representative it deserves! In this House and in the Senate we all must be very clear that representatives are voted in on party lines. More than 90 per cent of the votes cast in the Senate and the Legislative Council elections are voted for on party blocks. The votes are not substantially for individuals. No matter how much members may disapprove of Mr Lightfoot's views, it is very important that they be prepared to endorse him today. Mr Lightfoot will go into a tainted Senate because that important principle has been corrupted by the behaviour of the Government in offering, it would seem, various inducements of advancement of position and added office to a person who was elected as a Labor Party representative to the Senate to become an Independent. Therefore, he is no longer adequately representing the people who elected him. We must both in this House and the Senate, and possibly the lower Houses, wonder whether we should look to some constitutional reform so that when a person elected along party lines decides to jump ship, for whatever personal gain might be involved, that person must put himself before the community again to have his election ratified. Having made those general comments, I indicate that I agree with the concerns raised by my colleagues about the views promoted by Ross Lightfoot. However, in my case it is a situation of hating the sin rather than the sinner. Ross and I worked together for a number of years in broadcasting, and during that time I came to have some quiet regard for Ross as a human being. The PRESIDENT: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber and I ask members to cease. Ms MacTIERNAN: However, I do not demur from one of the criticisms of his views raised by my colleagues. When Ross goes to the Senate he must start considering the views he is espousing, because it is the easiest thing in the world to hop on the popular soapbox, whip up division in society, create dissension between people and get oneself an easy platform. It is done by Pauline Hanson very effectively and, even more disgracefully, by broadcasters such as Howard Sattler who have no concern whatsoever for the consequences of the dissension they create. Members need only look at what has happened in Yugoslavia, Burundi, the Soviet Union and even, to a large extent, the United States. Australia is not immune from this. Enormous instability can be created within society by setting individual against individual and group against group. I hope that when Ross Lightfoot moves to the Senate it will be a chance for him to reflect more deeply on what he is doing. He should read more widely and not concentrate simply on books on Aborigines that were written in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. He should try to catch up with more recent literature and analysis in order to gain a more profound understanding of Aboriginal people and to appreciate the complexity of their society. Although it may not have been technologically advanced, it was perfectly adapted 3178 [COUNCIL and ASSEMBLY] to the environment in which it operated. I hope Ross will use this as an opportunity to get to know more people of Asian background, and to develop a better understanding of boat people. Hon Bob Thomas: What about gays? Ms MacTIERNAN: I also hope he uses it as an opportunity to become more familiar with people of non-Christian religions, and develop an understanding of the great similarities between all the religions of the world. Perhaps Ross can develop a little beyond the notion of the conflict between Christians as the good guys and pagans as the bad guys. I say this in all sincerity, and I may cause some mirth among my colleagues, but I actually quite like Hon Ross Lightfoot, and we have worked well together - I know that he is not all bad. However, the views which Hon Ross Lightfoot has expressed, whether they are believed by him, I am not sure - Dr Gallop: Have you checked your comments with your faction before making them? Ms MacTIERNAN: It would be even worse if his views were not believed and were used in the manner, for example, of Howard Sattler, who uses such views to promote his position. The essential point with which we must come to terms is that it is very easy for us to create division. What is hard - this is our job - is to bring the community together to try to improve Australia and Western Australia for the benefit of us all. MR BROWN (Bassendean) [11.21 am]: I too wish to support the motion before the Chair. However, the onus is on those who moved it to provide reasons for its support. In fact, a few reasons should have been given today regarding a number of events. First, the Premier should have explained to the joint sitting why it has taken five months to fill the Senate vacancy. The Premier has wimped out in that regard. He has not explained for the record why it has taken five months for this joint sitting to take place, and those who read the record of this House will not know the Government's official position because the Premier, in his typically gutless way, refused today to reveal the reasons for not calling the joint sitting earlier - namely, the blatant party political reasons involved. A leader of this State with any intestinal fortitude, guts or courage, should at least be prepared to explain to this House and the people of Western Australia why it has taken so long for members to be called together. The extent to which the Premier seeks to hide under his chair and run away from this issue is the extent to which his naked weakness on this issue is exposed for all to see. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Mr BROWN: The Premier should be condemned for refusing to provide for the record in this House - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order!

Withdrawal of Remark MrTHOMAS: I distinctly heard the Minister for Transport describe the member as a "thug". That should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT: Order! I did not hear what the member said, but - Mrs Roberts: He said that the member was a thug - we all heard it. The PRESIDENT: Order! He will withdraw that comment. Hon E.J. CHARLTON: I said that these tactics espoused by the member for Bassendean are the sort of activity demonstrated last week by the thugs whom all members opposite supported! Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hang on, we need not have a brawl over it. Mr THOMAS: I distinctly heard him say that he is from a union, so he is a thug. The PRESIDENT: Order! Does the honourable member want that remark withdrawn? Mr BROWN: If I could take a moment to respond to that comment - The PRESIDENT: Do you want the remark withdrawn? [Monday, 19 May 1997] 3179

Mrs ROBERTS: It is not a matter of whether the member wants the remark to be withdrawn; it is a matter of whether it is parliamentary to use that language. That language is certainly regarded as unparliamentary in the Legislative Assembly. I heard the Minister for Transport say it, and it is a matter of whether it is in order. The PRESIDENT: If the Minister said it, he will withdraw it. Hon E.J. CHARLTON: If it is offensive now compared with last week, then I withdraw - Mr Stephens! The PRESIDENT: Order! If the Minister said it, he will withdraw it unconditionally. Hon E.J. Charlton: I did. Debate Resumed Mr BROWN: It is typical of the Minister for Transport to call anybody who disagrees with his views a thug. Members are probably used to hearing the term from the Minister for Transport. We will deal with the Minister in a moment regarding his weak interjections in the debate so far. Mr Kierath: I thought they were very good. Mr BROWN: By the Minister's standards, they were. As we saw last week, the standards of the Minister for Labour Relations are pretty low - in fact, one must go almost underground to reach his standards. The Premier is well aware of the comments made by Hon Ross Lightfoot inside and outside this place. Indeed, people need only read the newspaper or follow the media to know the comments made by Hon Ross Lightfoot. Nowhere in the Premier's speech did he dissociate himself or the Liberal Party from the member's comments. Mr Kierath: Do you support him or oppose him? Mr BROWN: Did the Premier dissociate himself from the comments of Hon Ross Lightfoot? No, he did not. Pointof Order Hon PETER FOSS: These comments are not relevant to the debate. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon PETER FOSS: Any remarks about Hon Ross Lightfoot may possibly be relevant. The PRESIDENT: Order! The debate on this motion, apart from four or five sentences, has all been irrelevant. I suggest to the honourable member that occasionally he should give us some comment about whether he has another nomination or is tickled pink about the one we have. Debate Resumed Mr BROWN: The latter description is not one with which I would concur, Mr President! A more serious issue is the failure of the Government, particularly the Premier, to explain the attributes of the person the Government is nominating for the vacancy, and to dissociate itself from any comments which are made by that person with which the Government does not agree. As the Premier remains silent, he agrees with the comments of Hon Ross Lightfoot. By not commenting, he acquiesces and sends that person to Canberra with his blessing and the blessing of the Government and endorses the views that that person has espoused over the years. Interestingly, two other government speakers have been heard in this debate on the Senate nominee. The Minister for Education formally seconded the proposition moved by the Premier. However, the Minister said nothing about Ross Lightfoot's comments about Aboriginal people or Aboriginal education. The extent to which the Minister for Education is silent on that view is the extent to which the he says one thing at schools and elsewhere publicly and another thing at the joint sitting. Mr Bradshaw: He responded to an interjection. Mr BROWN: In his speech - the member should open his ears - seconding the proposition moved by the Premier, the Minister did not dissociate himself from the comments of the nominee. Let us move to the other government speaker who supported the nominee. This speaker is a very modest fellow who some people say is the intellectual powerhouse of the Liberal Party. That is not a description he would give to himself, of course, but he is described in that way by some others. 3180 [COUNCIL and ASSEMBLY]

Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Mr BROWN: Let us look at the comments of the Attorney General and intellectual powerhouse of the Liberal Party, because they tell us something about the nomination process. Let us look at the comments from three perspectives. First, intellectual prowess; second, the truth; and - Point of Order Hon PETER FOSS: I think a line must be drawn somewhere. When the member is not talking about the nominee, but what people have and have not said, he ceases to be relevant to the point of the motion. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have let a wide ranging debate occur. I am about to bring that to a close, because the question that I am asking is, "Are there any other nominations?" I intend to be very strict from now on, because people are now taking advantage of my good nature that allowed earlier speakers to range over a wider area. All the member is doing is repeating what everyone else has said. It is not even original. It is a rehash of what previous speakers have said. If the member can give me some reason that we should have another nomination or that we should not have this one, I am prepared to listen, but I am not prepared to listen to the member rave on about the character of somebody else. The member talked earlier about the seconder of the motion, who did exactly what he had to do - second the motion, not talk about some extraneous things. I am starting to get very agitated about members misusing the privilege of addressing the question before the Chair. Even members with the most vivid imagination could not conclude that the member was getting around to telling me that he had another nomination; if he was, I would be delighted to run the ballot, or whatever we would have to do if there were another nomination. Debate Resumed Mr BROWN: Thank you, Mr President. I thought the purpose of this resolution was to appoint Hon Ross Lightfoot to the Senate. I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that it was appropriate to comment on that resolution. To the extent that I am permitted to comment on that resolution, I will do so; and if I am not permitted to comment on that resolution, I will accept your ruling, Mr President. If that is the way joint sittings will be run, so be it. I wish to comment on the nomination before the Chair, to the extent that I am allowed to do that - The PRESIDENT: Order! I have already told the member that I am happy for him to do that. If he ceases doing that, I will intervene. Mr BROWN: Thank you, Mr President. In commenting on the motion before the Chair, I wish to draw on comments - not repeat comments - that have been made by other speakers in support of that motion. The Attorney General, the intellectual powerhouse of the Liberal Party, made a number of comments. Point of Order Hon PETER FOSS: Mr President, that is outright defiance of your ruling. The member should talk about the nomination. The PRESIDENT: Order! I am quite capable of running this debate, but I have some sympathy with what the Attorney is saying. I repeat to the member, and not specifically to him, because he happens to be at the end of a long line of people, that my generosity in allowing this debate to range over this wide area is now, I believe, being abused. To speak about the character of the Attorney General does not come within the scope of this motion. If the member wants to talk about the Attorney General, there are other opportunities for doing that; this is not one of them. Debate Resumed Mr BROWN: In support of Hon Ross Lightfoot, the Attorney General commented - his comments were allowed by you, Mr President - disparagingly about the number of members on this side of the Legislative Council who were elected at the last election. I will close in a moment, but if you will allow me some latitude, Mr President, I will indicate to the Parliament, for the sake of the record, the truth with regard to these matters, because it is important. The Attorney General's comments in support of this candidate involve three issues: Intellectual prowess, the truth, and numbers. The Attorney General said that at the last election, the people voted for less than one-third of the members of this House to be members of the Labor Party. The Attorney General is either a very poor mathematician or is seeking to mislead this House, because at the 1996 election, 12 members of the Labor Party were returned in a 34 seat Parliament. That is over one-third - Several members interjected. [Monday, 19 May 1997] 3181

Mr BROWN: That is right. That shows three things about the intellectual powerhouse of the Liberal Party: He has some problems with mathematics, he has some problems with the truth, and he has some problems with numbers. That illustrates the nature of the problems of the Government. I conclude by offering this challenge to the next most senior Minister, whom I take to be Hon Norman Moore. Given that the Premier has wimped out, the Minister for Education has wimped out and the Attorney General has wimped out, I challenge Hon Norman Moore to make a speech on behalf of the Government dissociating the Government from the views that have been put by its candidate and saying that the Government does not agree with those views. HON J.A. SCOTT (South Metropolitan) [11.36 am]: In supporting this motion, which I do with some trepidation, I wish to thank you publicly, Mr President, for your adjudication over the years that I have been in this place, and particularly over the past two weeks, which have been particularly trying. I have some trepidation about the nomination of Hon Ross Lightfoot because I am sure that, on the one hand, he will represent very strongly in the Federal Parliament the views of Western Australia, but I am concerned that he will not represent fairly the views of some sections of the Western Australian community, particularly the Aboriginal population. Many members have already put forward various of the Schickelgrubian views that have been espoused by Hon Ross Lightfoot, and I will not go over those. When Mr Lightfoot does get to Canberra I will be interested to see what effect his views will have on the ability of the Federal Government to handle issues of race. I know that the Prime Minister has been fairly slow to condemn some of the racist views put by Pauline Hanson and her supporters, and even when he has his comments have been fairly mild. There was little outcry from the coalition until those views began to gain support in the community, at the expense of the coalition parties. I do not know whether our sending Hon Ross Lightfoot to Canberra will signal to Mr Howard that Western Australia wants the Liberal Party to go further along that path. I hope it does not send that message. On the other hand, because Hon Ross Lightfoot's views have been described as even more extreme than the views of Ms Hanson, or Mrs Hanson - I am not sure what she prefers to be called - they will promote a move in the other direction. Rather than being totally offended, members in this House found those comments funny because they seemed to come from another era. Despite these concerns, I wish Hon Ross Lightfoot well. I, like the member for Armadale, believe Hon Ross Lightfoot is genuine in most of the points he puts forward, although I disagree with him on most - not all - of them. I understand Hon Ross Lightfoot is in the Chamber now. I ask him to remember to work for all Australians, including Aborigines, when he gets to Canberra. That is his job. Before he speaks about Aborigines in Canberra I urge him to talk to them and ask them what they want. Canberra is a long way away. When Hon Ross Lightfoot speaks of Aboriginal matters, he does so from an elevated point of view. When he is in Canberra, he will speak from an even more elevated position and a very remote distance. I ask him to speak for the Aboriginal people after having heard their views. I wish him well in Canberra. MR THOMAS (Cockburn) [11.41 am]: I am quite happy to speak to the proposition that Hon Ross Lightfoot be appointed to the Senate and I will make some observations about his suitability for that position. Notwithstanding that the Opposition will vote for this appointment, it is hard to think of a more bizarre proposition than that Western Australia should nominate for a casual vacancy in the Senate someone such as Hon Ross Lightfoot. Western Australia has one of the highest Aboriginal populations of all States of Australia, yet we are sending to Canberra someone whose attitudes are outdated - and that is the kindest that can be said of him. Earlier in my life I studied anthropology. The views expressed by Hon Ross Lightfoot on these matters were discredited and outdated by the 1850s. In a more modern and political sense, it is an insult to the Aboriginal people of Western Australia to send to Canberra as a senator somebody who has made disparaging and critical comments about Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a person acknowledged by the world with a Nobel peace prize. The Liberal Party of Western Australia should hang its head in shame for nominating Hon Ross Lightfoot as a senator. I am very disappointed the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Primary Industry are not here today. While driving to Parliament House this morning I heard on the radio that the Deputy Premier is on his way to Germany to represent the State's interests. We wish him well in that regard. Presumably, he is acting in his capacity as Minister for Trade. I am not sure where the Minister for Primary Industry is, but I have no doubt he will be working diligently somewhere in the State in that capacity. Dr Hames: He is here today. Mr THOMAS: I am pleased to hear that because I am interested to know what he has to say about the nomination of Hon Ross Lightfoot to the Senate. We need only remember that as a Liberal Party member of the Legislative Assembly of this State, he wrote to the Secretary of State of the United States asking that country to dump subsidised wheat on international markets to break the Australian economy to bring down what he described as a socialist 3182 [COUNCIL and ASSEMBLY] government. Although he may have been some hayseed out in the sticks, more importantly he was also a member of the Legislative Assembly. The Deputy Premier represents a rural area. The Minister for Primary Industry, who is not in the Chamber now, also represents a rural area and has a distinct interest in the prosperity of Western Australia's rural areas. What do they say about the fact that we are sending to the Senate to represent our interests a person who did that? People from another planet might ask whether this is really happening. They would expect to be told that no, this is just a concoction; it would not really happen. This is beyond the wildest dreams of the most imaginative storyteller - yet it is happening. It is bizarre. We should also reflect not only on the substantive issues, but also on the process involved in what we are doing today. We are sitting in the Legislative Council Chamber with members who were elected to the upper House in 1993, four and a half years ago. Mr President, you were elected then. These members are an unrepresentative body. This is a lame duck Legislative Council. Hon N.F. Moore: Rubbish! Mr THOMAS: The Leader of the House may say that, but I ask him to reflect on this - Hon N.F. Moore: It is your legislation we are operating under. Mr THOMAS: In December 1996 a Legislative Council was elected which will have a totally different composition. Hon E.J. Charlton: It will make decisions next week. Mr THOMAS: This Government has taken two actions to misuse the Parliament so that the Executive can dominate the Parliament and the will of the people of Western Australia can be subverted: One is to delay your appointment, Mr President, to London, which was announced some time ago and should have taken place some time earlier in normal circumstances. Of course, that is a matter for the Executive. The second matter relates to the replacement of a senator for Western Australia. As has been pointed out by numerous speakers, an unprecedentedly long time has passed between the sad death of Senator Panizza and his replacement in the Senate. That has been caused because the Government wanted to sneak through legislation for which it has no mandate. It wanted to sneak it through before it was subject to a House of Review which reflects the views of the people of Western Australia as recently as December 1996. Mr Court: Why then was it okay for Senator Beahan and the like to vote against the incoming Howard Government? Mr THOMAS: I am not sure of the circumstances to which the Premier is alluding. Hon N.F. Moore: The period of time between the election and the time their term expires. Mr THOMAS: Let us talk about a well-established principle, which relates to a variance between the lower House and the upper House, which the Premier understands. The most polished exponent of this doctrine was his father. Between 1971 and 1973 Sir Charles Court was the Leader of the Opposition. At that stage the Legislative Council was at variance with the lower House. Legislation was put forward by the Tonkin Government. The doctrine expounded by Sir Charles Court was whether the proposition was in a policy speech. Dr Gallop: That was one we used. Mr THOMAS: He said, "If it was in the policy speech, the Government has a mandate to pass it. If not, that is bad luck and you can just go away; we have the numbers and we have the power and that is what the rest must put up with." Expanding on the Court doctrine - for want of a better term - was the industrial legislation, which passed through the lower House and the upper House with an unprecedented second sitting of the lower House sprung on us last Thursday, in the Premier's policy speech? No, it was not. It had to be sneaked through this unrepresentative Chamber to avoid its being subject to a body which represents the will of the people of Western Australia expressed as recently as December 1996. This is a very sad end to a sad process. The action we are taking in appointing Ross Lightfoot to the Senate is bizarre - that is the kindest word I can use. The safest thing about it is, presumably, that he will be irrelevant and, I hope, unnoticed on the national stage and in the future of the nation. It is a fitting end to what has been going on in this Parliament over the past couple of weeks: It is a disgrace. Ultimately, that is reflected by the fact that this joint sitting is being held behind closed doors. The Government is not prepared to admit the people of Western Australia into this Chamber to see the farce by which a senator is being chosen to represent them in Canberra. The PRESIDENT: Is there a further nomination? [Monday, 19 May 1997] 3183

HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the House) [11.50 am]: I wish to support the nomination before the House. Mr Ripper: Will you dissociate yourself from Ross Lightfoot's views? Hon N.F. MOORE: I support without question the nomination of Hon Ross Lightfoot. One thing about him is that he will always be noticed. He will be a very noticed member of the Federal Parliament and he will vigorously argue his point of view, as he is entitled to do. He will be a good advocate for the people of Western Australia. The reason for the delay in the appointment of Hon Ross Lightfoot to the Senate is largely an unfortunate aspect of the Electoral Act. Section 156(a) and (c) does not provide for his replacement in this Chamber. The fact that Hon Ross Lightfoot has sought to resign between the last state election and 21 May means that our Electoral Act does not provide for him to be replaced. We hear a lot of talk from the Labor Party about replacing people when a vacancy occurs; however, not one member of the Labor Party talked today about replacing Hon Ross Lightfoot when his vacancy was created. The changes to the Electoral Act drawn up by the Labor Party - the Burke Labor Government - Hon Bob Thomas: And modified by the conservatives in this House. Hon N.F. MOORE: - did not provide for a replacement in the event that a member from either side resigned from the Parliament between an election and 21 May. It is not possible under our existing law for Hon Ross Lightfoot to be replaced. Mr Graham: That is not true. Hon N.F. MOORE: If Mr Graham is capable, he should read the Electoral Act. Mr Graham: It does not prohibit it. Mr Thomas: We offered you a pair. Hon N.F. MOORE: Because Hon Ross Lightfoot could not be replaced the Labor Party offered a pair. That was based very much on a qualified statement to me: "We will provide you with a pair on the substantive issue of the Bill, but not on the other matters." Hon N.D. Griffiths: That is not so. Tell the truth. Hon N.F. MOORE: Had I not been here for a long time, I probably would have accepted that statement. However, I sat in this Chamber when the former Premier Brian Burke walked into this Chamber, called the Whip across and said, "Call off pairs right now." That is exactly what happened. Hon Tom Stephens: You are dealing with me. Hon N.F. MOORE: Pairs were called off without notice because the leader of Labor Party - in those days, Brian Burke - decided there would be no pairs in the Legislative Council. Even if Mr Stephens gave me an absolute assurance there would be pairs in this Chamber I would want to hear it from his leader. Dr Gallop: I delivered it to Hon Ross Lightfoot myself. Hon N.F. MOORE: The Leader of the Opposition would have to repudiate what was done by his predecessors. Members opposite cannot be trusted. They have shown us they cannot be trusted. Dr Gallop: It is a reflection of your nature. You are looking at yourself in the mirror when you say that. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite could not be trusted in the past, so who is to say they could be trusted in the future? That is the history of the Labor Party with pairs. They have called them off; they cannot be trusted. We have also heard today a number of comments about the suitability of Hon Ross Lightfoot because of the views he holds on a number of issues. Mr Thomas: Open the doors and face the people. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have been challenged to say whether I agree or disagree with his views. One of the reasons that these sorts of debates are being held in Australia at the present time is that for the past 10 or 15 years political correctness has gone completely mad. We were not allowed to say something that did not suit the ALP. If one had a view of the world that the Labor Party or the Keating Government in particular did not agree with it was out of order to say it. For so long people have felt they have not had a chance to say anything that did not go along with the ALP's version of mainstream views. Pauline Hanson is attracting so much support because she is saying things that people have been thinking and would not have minded saying themselves, but were not allowed to. 3184 [COUNCIL and ASSEMBLY]

Dr Gallop: Put your views forward then; this is double speak. The Liberal Party is deeply divided in this State. Hon N.F. MOORE: People are entitled to their own views and to express them. It is competent for the rest of the community to decide whether they support those views. It is not for the Labor Party to say that some people cannot express their views. There are many things that Hon Ross Lightfoot has said over time that I do not agree with at all, and I have told him. There have been occasions when he has said things that I agree with, and I have told him. He is entitled like everybody else in this society - including Dr Gallop - to his own views. Dr Gallop: Of course he is entitled to his views, and we are entitled to criticise them. Hon N.F. MOORE: He is entitled to express those views, and being part of this side of politics he is entitled to do that without being disendorsed or thrown out. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! For goodness sake, I cannot understand what has come over members; they are getting out of hand. I ask the Leader of the Legislative Council to draw his comments to a close so that I can find out whether there are any other nominations. I have been here for two hours trying to get a second nomination, and I have failed so far. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I will give you an absolute assurance that I will not be suggesting a second nomination. The PRESIDENT: That is what we are talking about. Hon N.F. MOORE: Hon Ross Lightfoot holds a number of views on a range of issues. One thing I can say for Ross, whether I agree with him or not, is that he does an enormous amount of reading and research. He has a wide range of views. He reaches his views after careful consideration. Mr Ripper: That makes them worse. Hon N.F. MOORE: Whether one agrees with those views is beside the point. Hon Tom Helm interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: What happened to Hon Ron Thompson, who sat around about where Hon Tom Helm is now sitting now, and who had a different view from the Labor Party on homosexual law reform? He was kicked out of the party. Mr Thomas: He resigned. Hon N.F. MOORE: He resigned three seconds before he was kicked out. Dr Gallop: He exercised his conscience. Hon E.J. Charlton: He walked. The PRESIDENT: Order! I fail to comprehend what that has got to do with this debate. I am disgusted with the way in which this debate has ensued. I have sat through more of these joint sittings than anybody else in the world, and never have I seen a debate carried on in this manner. Mr Thomas: You have never had a candidate like Ross. The PRESIDENT: Order! It is the first time that Hon Ross Lightfoot has been nominated; however, that is not the point. Enough is enough. I will not allow anything other than a member putting forward another nomination after the leader sits down. Hon N.F. MOORE: I want to conclude by drawing attention to the matter raised by some members about this Chamber, that somehow or other between the election and 21 May this is not a legitimate Chamber. It is a legitimate Chamber, because the law provides for that in the same way that it provides for the Senate to be a legitimate Chamber between an election and when members retire. We have had a recent change of government at the national level and a change in the composition of the Senate. I want to draw the attention of the House to situations that demonstrate the amazing hypocrisy of some members of the Labor Party. Dr Gallop: Describing facts does not produce values and you had better get your act together. You have never given a decent explanation of what you have done. Hon N.F. MOORE: I will go through the names of retiring senators as at 30 June 1996. They were Senator Beahan - the fellow who lost his endorsement - and Senators Burns and Coates from the Australian Labor Party; Senators Bell [Monday, 19 May 1997] 3185 and Spindler from the Australian Democrats; and Senator Chamarette from the Greens (WA). Those members remained in the Senate after the election at the national level until 30 June 1996 and they were entitled to vote. All retiring senators voted in divisions in the period between the reconvening of Parliament on 30 April 1996 and the end of their terms on 30 June 1996. There were 25 sitting days and over that time 28 divisions were called. The number of times the retiring Australian Labor Party senators voted against the Government in divisions was 24; the number of times the retiring Democrats voted against the Government in the Senate was 27; the number of times the retiring Greens (WA) senator voted against the Government in divisions was 26. The number of times the three parties combined to vote against the Government was 23. It seems to be quite legitimate for those retiring senators from the ALP, the Democrats and the Greens in the Senate to have voted against a Government which was elected prior to the expiration of their term in office. That demonstrates the total hypocrisy of the Opposition, which has argued that somehow this Chamber should not function the way it has been functioning. It functions in the same way as the Senate, and if members opposite believe that we should change, they should argue also for a change in the Senate. I have not heard that argument. Therefore, I support strongly the nomination of Hon Ross Lightfoot. I think he will be an excellent senator for Western Australia, and I support him very sincerely. THE PRESIDENT (Hon Clive Griffiths): There being no further nominations I declare that Philip Ross Lightfoot has been elected to fill the vacancy in the Senate. The joint sitting concluded at 12.02 pm ______