Territory senators get 3 year terms that match the lower house terms.

Of the 12 senators elected for each state in a double dissolution election, 6 get full (six-year) terms and 6 get half (three-year) terms. Terms will be deemed to have started on the first of July this year, and the periods are fixed, unlike the lower house.

The 'old' method was to give the 'first' 6 senators elected full terms. Where parties have more than a full quota of first preferences, the party with the biggest first preference take gets one senator elected first, then it moves to the next party with a full quota, and so on until they have one each, then back to the first party if they had 2 full quotas of first preferences.

The electoral act was modified in 1984 with a new method. This method effectively recounts the ballots as if it were a half-senate election, and the 6 winners get full terms. The process starts by excluding all but the 12 elected senators (and distributing those preferences) in case through some quirk a different senator makes it into the top 6.

I think this new method is fairer.

There is an exception to this rule - the Senate actually has the power to determine who gets full terms, according to the constitution. In the 1987 double dissolution election, they voted to use the old method. This is because it favoured Labor and the Democrats, who held power in the Senate. I think that theoretically whoever controls the senate could give all of the full terms to themselves.

Since 1987 the Senate has passed several resolutions stating it's intention to use the new recount method, but this is effectively an untested convention that the new Senate may choose not to follow.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2014/06/how-senate-rotations-are-re-established-after-a-double-dissolution.html

The guilty ones should get the 6 year terms. The others can be released into the wild.

That sounds very "Anthony Green" and I didn't understand it, but I'm not reading it again.

Whatever will be will be.

I doubt if freediver can understand it either - who can ??

I thought I heard Antony Green say on election night that the Senate will decide who get six and who gets three. I'd say they'll get rid of Hanson quick smart. 8-)

It is a summary of an Antony Green article, which I provided the URL for.

The Senate has the authority to decide on any basis they want, but they should use the new method. There is a good chance Hanson will get a full term using the new method. She definitely would with the old method.

Hinch has already said he will challenge it in court if he doesn't get 6 yrs.

John Smith wrote on Jul 20^th, 2016 at 7:14pm:

Hinch has already said he will challenge it in court if he doesn't get 6 yrs.

I hope he gets three, just to see the challenge.

Can't say that I have ever "liked" Hinch but he really got up my nose when he called the GG a drunk because he sacked Whitlam.

Plus Hinch and that 15 year old girl and a heap of other stuff.  Senator? Good grief.  If that is all you have to be to become a Senator .... Australia is STUFFED!

Oh and Jackie Weaver is about 5 foot .... tiny little thing ... saw/talked to her at a Northshore shop selling baby clothes and stuff .... eons ago.

I'm pretty sure Hinch will only get a 3 year term, regardless of how it is done. He is only considered "Likely" to get a seat at all. I'm surprised he got that far.

They have screwed us over again. Despite changing the electoral act in 1984 to adopt the new fairer method of deciding who gets 6 year terms, and passing resolutions twice since then to use the new method (in 1998 and 2010), both Labor and the Coalition have gone back to the old method. This is the second time this has happened. In 1987, the AEC went ahead and did the count using the new method, but the Senate changed it's mind at the last minute and went with the old method.

In both cases the motive was the same - the senate majority found that they would get more six year terms if they went with the old method. They are basically electing themselves into the senate for 6 year terms, despite a law and several agreements not to do this.

We need to change the constitution to fix this, as the "gentleman's agreement" is obviously not working. These people cannot be trusted.

This is how they spun it:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-12/pauline-hanson-secures-six-years-in-senate/7730280

Cabinet Minister Mathias Cormann told Sky News the first six senators elected in each state will get six-year terms.

"Under the methodology used so far, the first six senators elected would get six years, whoever they are and whoever they represent," Senator Cormann said.

When pressed about whether minor party senators would be unfairly disadvantaged, he said the outcomes varied in different states.

The Opposition intends to back the move, ensuring it will be endorsed by the Senate.

Labor's Senate leader Penny Wong said: "Labor will support the Government's proposal to allocate senators' terms of office according to the order in which Senators were elected in each state."

"This is consistent with the Senate's previous practice following double dissolution elections and reflects the will of the voters."

Crap.

Neferti wrote on Jul 20^th, 2016 at 7:44pm:

Senator? Good grief.  If that is all you have to be to become a Senator .... Australia is STUFFED!

Pretty much anyone can become a Senator.

No education requirements.

No experience requirements.

No references required.

It's probably harder to get a job at MacDonald's.

Quote:

"This is consistent with the Senate's previous practice following double dissolution elections and reflects the will of the voters." Crap.

It is not you know.  It is cute spin of the arsehole kind smart arses use all the time.

'Australians prefer Pauline Hanson.'

'Australians want Muslims excluded.'

'Australians vote for capital punishment.'

All 100% true and completely mischievous.

Jack Lang: ''In the race of life, always back self-interest - at least you know it's trying''.

I urge everyone to write to their local federal MP and state senators to complain about this.

Find your local MP here:

http://apps.aec.gov.au/esearch/

Find your local MP and state senator contact details here:

http://www.alp.org.au/people/#filter=.mp
http://www.alp.org.au/people/#filter=.senator
https://lnp.org.au/our-team/federal/



What I have sent in:

Senate debacle

LNP:

What your party has done in the Senate is wrong. Your party supported the changes to the electoral act in 1984 to adopt a new, fairer method. Your party passed resolutions in 1998 and 2010 to adopt these changes. Your party has reneged on your promise to the Australian people, in a greedy move to get your senators a bigger share of the full 6 year terms, at the expense of other candidates. Your party can not be trusted with this most fundamental aspect of democracy. Your party has deligitimised the senate of Australia. The spin your party has attempted to put on this grubby move in the media is dishonest.

I ask you to do the right thing and change this decision. If you have any backbone at all, you will call out your colleagues for supporting this despicable act.


Labor:

What your party has done in the Senate is wrong. Your party passed changes to the electoral act in 1984 to adopt a new, fairer method. Your party passed resolutions in 1998 and 2010 to adopt these changes. Despite this, your part reneged on this promise to the Australian public in 1987, in a greedy move to get your senators a bigger share of the full 6 year terms, at the expense of other candidates. Your party reneged on your promise yet again just two days ago, for the same greedy motive. Your party can not be trusted with this most fundamental aspect of democracy. Your party has deligitimised the senate of Australia. The spin your party has attempted to put on this grubby move in the media is dishonest.

I ask you to do the right thing and change this decision. If you have any backbone at all, you will call out your colleagues for supporting this despicable act.


Make sure you sign off with your name and suburb.

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2016 at 12:27pm:

I urge everyone to write to their local federal MP and state senators to complain about this. Find your local MP here: http://apps.aec.gov.au/esearch/ Find your local MP and state senator contact details here: http://www.alp.org.au/people/#filter=.mp http://www.alp.org.au/people/#filter=.senator https://lnp.org.au/our-team/federal/ What I have sent in: Senate debacle LNP: What your party has done in the Senate is wrong. Your party supported the changes to the electoral act in 1984 to adopt a new, fairer method. Your party passed resolutions in 1998 and 2010 to adopt these changes. Your party has reneged on your promise to the Australian people, in a greedy move to get your senators a bigger share of the full 6 year terms, at the expense of other candidates. Your party can not be trusted with this most fundamental aspect of democracy. Your party has deligitimised the senate of Australia. The spin your party has attempted to put on this grubby move in the media is dishonest. I ask you to do the right thing and change this decision. If you have any backbone at all, you will call out your colleagues for supporting this despicable act. Labor: What your party has done in the Senate is wrong. Your party passed changes to the electoral act in 1984 to adopt a new, fairer method. Your party passed resolutions in 1998 and 2010 to adopt these changes. Despite this, your part reneged on this promise to the Australian public in 1987, in a greedy move to get your senators a bigger share of the full 6 year terms, at the expense of other candidates. Your party reneged on your promise yet again just two days ago, for the same greedy motive. Your party can not be trusted with this most fundamental aspect of democracy. Your party has deligitimised the senate of Australia. The spin your party has attempted to put on this grubby move in the media is dishonest. I ask you to do the right thing and change this decision. If you have any backbone at all, you will call out your colleagues for supporting this despicable act. Make sure you sign off with your name and suburb.

From another thread on this topic:


Bam wrote on Aug 14^th, 2016 at 1:25pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 14th, 2016 at 10:32am: Labor and the Coalition have renegged on a change to the electoral act and two resolutions since then to use the new fairer method of allocating 6 year terms. Instead they have chosen once again to vote to give themselves more six year terms and screw over the other parties. They have tried to pass this off as the will of the people. I encourage everyone to write to their local federal MP and complain about this. I posted a quantitative analysis in another thread where I showed that the recount method in section 282 of the Electoral Act produced a fairer outcome. The recount method produced a split for the Coalition 15-13, ALP 12-12, the Greens 4-5 and Hinch 1-0 (the first number is the number of 6-year terms). The results for the first-elected method were Coalition 16-12, ALP 13-11, the Greens 3-6 and Hinch 0-1. So the Coalition and ALP have given themselves one additional long-term Senator at the expense of the Greens and Hinch.

Bam wrote on Aug 6^th, 2016 at 2:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 6th, 2016 at 11:40am: I think you will see labor and liberal combine to force to historical method. I'm not so sure. The order of election method would favour the Coalition. ORDER OF ELECTION (states) NSW: 3 Coalition 3 ALP, 2 Coalition, 1 ALP, 1 Grn, 1 ON, 1 LDP. VIC: 3 Coalition, 2 ALP, 1 Grn, 2 Coalition, 2 ALP, 1 Grn, 1 Hinch. QLD: 3 Coalition, 2 ALP, 1 ON, 2 Coalition, 2 ALP, 1 Grn, 1 ON. WA: 3 Coalition, 2 ALP, 1 Grn, 2 Coalition, 2 ALP, 1 Grn, 1 ON. SA: 2 Coalition, 2 ALP, 2 NXT, 2 Coalition, 1 ALP, 1 NXT, 1 Grn, 1 FFP. TAS: 2 Coalition, 2 ALP, 1 Grn, 1 Lambie, 2 Coalition, 3 ALP, 1 Grn. TOTALS: 16 Coalition, 13 ALP, 3 Grn, 2 NXT, 1 ON, 1 Lambie, 12 Coalition, 11 ALP, 6 Grn, 3 ON, 1 LDP, 1 Hinch, 1 FFP, 1 NXT. This split would strongly favour the Coalition 16-12, the ALP slightly 13-11 and heavily disadvantage the Greens 3-6. Sum of these differences is 9. The s282 method would give Hinch and a NSW Green 6-year terms instead of a Victorian Liberal and NSW Labor candidate. This would give much fairer splits of 15-13 for the Coalition, 12-12 for ALP and 4-5 Greens. Sum of differences is 3 - clearly the s282 method is MUCH fairer. longweekend58 wrote on Aug 6th, 2016 at 11:40am: We get rid of Hinch and at least one hanson senator quickly. That cant be bad. Hinch was elected 10th, so under the order of election mwthod he would get a 3-year term. Hinch would get a 6-year term under the recount method. The same for the One Nation candidates - I think three of them would end up with 3-year terms under both methods. Hanson herself may get a 6-year term under both methods.

Got a response from one senator. Guess which party? No response from the others.

Thank you for your email. There have been a range of decisions about the process for elelction . We did not need to have a double dissolution this year;it was a waste of money and has not provided any further stability in the senate. The decision which will be voted on in the senate this month allows for the terms to be determined on order of election…the first 6elected will get 6years and the second 6. 3years. This is fair

I wrote back:

It is unfair and undemocratic. It is a self serving backflip on your party's repeatedly stated policy. It is a lie to try to spin it any other way. Do the right thing.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2016 at 9:45pm:

Got a response from one senator. Guess which party? No response from the others. Thank you for your email. There have been a range of decisions about the process for elelction . We did not need to have a double dissolution this year;it was a waste of money and has not provided any further stability in the senate. The decision which will be voted on in the senate this month allows for the terms to be determined on order of election…the first 6elected will get 6years and the second 6. 3years. This is fair I wrote back: It is unfair and undemocratic. It is a self serving backflip on your party's repeatedly stated policy. It is a lie to try to spin it any other way. Do the right thing.

Tell us, FD ~ when you wrote to that Senator, did you state you were owner/admin of this Forum, and did you, in your own words, describe how significant you thought this Forum was in the Australian Body Politic?

no

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2016 at 10:04pm:

no

Okay, I'll take you at your word.  Why the Hell would you get a specific response to an email when mere mortals like me get a fro forma robot reply telling me nothing other than thanking me for my email?

That is a pro forma response Aussie. There is more detail there because they are getting a lot of complaints and questions about this. If they had actually read my email, they would have known not to send me such transparent BS.