WA Labor has also won outright control of the upper house. Will they use this opportunity to end malapportionment?
I've been wondering this, too, and I haven't seen anything about it. For context, the reason that Labor did not abolish malapportionment for the lower house until 2005 is that historically it did not work particularly to the benefit of either side; the two parties had a roughly equal share of both metropolitan and non-metropolitan electorates. (This is notably unlike South Australia and Queensland, where malapportionment decidedly favored the right, and this probably has something to do with why Western Australia, uniquely among the states, has never experienced decades of single-party rule.)
Obviously that's not the case anymore. Automation and the resulting decline in non-metropolitan industrial jobs have hurt Labor outside the cities everywhere, but it seems to me that the effect is most visible in Western Australia, where the shift to fly-in fly-out employment has resulted in workers employed in resource extraction simply living in Perth, no matter where in the state they work. The rise of the Nationals on a regionalist platform has also contributed in making remote parts of the state very difficult for Labor; even at this election, the old Labor turncoat Vince Catania was the only National to lose his seat, while the other four remained unscathed. The Nationals are not, strictly speaking, in coalition with the Liberals, but they are still a right-wing party, and their growth means that those regions have become ever less fruitful Labor territory.
On the other hand, given that the Labor majority in the upper house exists thanks to regional Labor MLCs, it's quite possible that those legislators will be unwilling to abolish their own seats. Maybe Labor will just leave well enough alone; it's not as if the upper house will matter at all for the next four years.
