|
senate vote 2018-02-13#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-07-21 14:08:53
|
Title
Parliamentary Representation — Rotation of Senators- Parliamentary Representation - Rotation of Senators
Description
<p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>On behalf of Senator Birmingham, I move:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-02-13.121.2) introduced by Queensland Senator [James McGrath](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/james_mcgrath) (LNP), which means it passed.
- ### Motion text
- > *That—*
- >
- > *(a) as soon as practicable, after the High Court orders a special count of the ballots from the 2016 Senate election for any state and makes an order declaring that a person identified by that count is duly elected as a senator for that state, there be laid on the table a copy of the statement of results report for that count; and*
- >
- > *(b) if such a report is tabled, in relation to any state, then the order of the Senate of 31 August 2016, made pursuant to section 13 of the Constitution, have effect in relation to senators from that state as if a reference to the certificate of election were a reference to the most recent statement of results report.*
<p class="italic">That—</p><p class="italic">(a) as soon as practicable, after the High Court orders a special count of the ballots from the 2016 Senate election for any state and makes an order declaring that a person identified by that count is duly elected as a senator for that state, there be laid on the table a copy of the statement of results report for that count; and</p><p class="italic">(b) if such a report is tabled, in relation to any state, then the order of the Senate of 31 August 2016, made pursuant to section 13 of the Constitution, have effect in relation to senators from that state as if a reference to the certificate of election were a reference to the most recent statement of results report.</p> <p class="speaker">Steve Martin</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement of not more than two minutes.</p><p>Leave granted.</p><p>This is not to be taken as my first speech. I oppose this motion on three grounds. First, section 13 of the Constitution provides that the Senate terms are to be allocated by the Senate on the first available sitting opportunity after dissolution. This was done on 31 August 2016. There was a reason that the framers included that provision. It was to prevent parties in the Senate from being able to change terms mid-course as a reward for cooperative senators or to punish those who are difficult. And yet here we are in the Senate, locking in a process of rolling reallocation in response to highly unusual circumstances. This may be in keeping with the letter of the Constitution; it is not, I believe, in keeping with the spirit of it.</p><p>Second, where was the consultation? This motion seems to be cooked up between the major parties with very little notice or without any prior discussion. Again, this is disappointing and not in the spirit of how these things should be done.</p><p>Finally, let's look at who stands to lose out from this motion, those of us who are being bumped to a three-year term: Senators Molan and Colbeck, two senators placed down on their tickets by their party; Senator Steele-John, the youngest senator in this chamber; and, of course, me, as an Independent here to fight purely on behalf of Tasmania. I leave it to the Senate to reflect on how this looks. Suffice to say this is precisely the kind of mischief I believe the framers of our Constitution were trying to avoid.</p> <p class="speaker">Derryn Hinch</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Derryn Hinch</p><p>I think this is a deal cooked up by the major parties to try to make legal a dirty mess that they created last year. On 10 August last year the AEC had the result of the Victorian section 282 recount: (1) Fifield, (2) Carr, (3) Di Natale, (4) McKenzie, (5) Conroy, (6) Hinch. That was under what was called the Bob Hawke line of fairness approach. When that came up, that wasn't good enough. With no disrespect, Mr President, you were the person who got No. 6 with the deal done with the Labor Party down in Victoria. In New South Wales it was Senator Rhiannon who got the shaft, and Senator O'Neill, for the Labor Party, got there. It's a stitch-up by the major parties.</p><p>I totally support Senator Martin. It could happen to any crossbencher at any time. I tried to protest against this last year, but we didn't have the numbers—we still don't have the numbers. I think it's a rotten deal and it's unfair. I got six years. Take me out of it, because the next person— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Just to respond to the comments from senators: Senator Martin is indeed correct; the Constitution does provide that these matters shall be determined shortly after the Senate has the opportunity to sit. That, of course, is what the Senate chose to do. The motion before the Senate today seeks to provide confirmation of the decision that the Senate undertook, which is that the process for determining three-year and six-year terms, as has been tradition and the case with previous double dissolutions, shall be in accordance with the order of election as declared by the Australian Electoral Commission.</p><p>There is no change to the process and no change to the formula. The certificates that will be provided by the AEC under this process may result in some changes because certain candidates for election have been disqualified since then by the High Court in various findings; however, the process being used is identical to that which the Senate previously agreed. This motion just provides confirmation of that process.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>The question is that government business notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to.</p> -
-
|