Here is an article I just published on an important issue that I think did not get enough media coverage after the election. Let's see if we can fix that.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/broken-promises-stolen-senate-seats.html

Labor and the Coalition have gotten away with stealing Senate seats. By decree, they have handed themselves a disproportionate amount of the six year senate terms. They were handed to Labor's Deborah O'Neill and Liberal's Scott Ryan, at the expense of Derryn Hinch and the Greens' Lee Rhiannon. In doing so, they break repeated promises they have made to the Australian public. These promises took the form of two separate but identical Senate resolutions that were passed with support from both Labor and the Coalition in 1998 and 2010. The commercial media facilitated this coup by failing to mention these Senate resolutions in any articles written after Labor and the Coalition announced their plans. There was a long period of time between the announcement and the Senate vote (which the media also failed to report on) in which a more aware Australian public could have held the major parties accountable to their promises. The media quoted major party spokespeople offering a variety of excuses and validations for their actions, but universally failed to report key facts that would have allowed the Australian public to make an informed judgement. No tough questions have been put to the politicians responsible.

This article provides a brief constitutional background and the history of this important electoral reform, details of the 2016 election, the decision to steal Senate seats and the consistent failure by the media to report key facts.

Introduction                                    
Background                                    
History                                    
A difference of two seats                                    
The resolutions that no-one knows about                                    
The 2016 election                                    
Media coverage                                    
Public remain ignorant                                    
Lazy and incompetent?                                    
Odger                                    
Public pesters Antony Green                                    
ABC coverage                                    
Coverage in the commercial media                                    
The Australian and Senator Mathias Cormann promote a lie about preference flows                                    
Media silence                                    
Where to from here?                                    
Commonwealth Consolidated Acts                                    
Odgers' Australian Senate Practice Thirteenth Edition                                    
Double dissolution election: implications for the Senate                                    
Antony Green's blogs                                    
Curious Campaign: Which senators will get a six-year term and which will only get three?                                    
Election 2016: How do we decide which senators are in for three years and which are in for six?                                    
[url=http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/broken-promises-stolen-senate-seats.html#Greens-call-on-Labor-to-support-'fairer'-method-to-share-six-year-Senate-terms]Greens call on Labor to support 'fairer' method

Further Senate results and analysis
Cormann raises &#8216first elected&#8217 plan to halve Senate terms for crossbenchers
ALP-LNP deal to force senators back to poll in three years
Election 2016: Pauline Hanson secures six-year Senate term, Derryn Hinch has three years until re-election
Senate terms: Derryn Hinch and Greens' Lee Rhiannon given three years
Coalition and Labor team up to clear out crossbench senators in 2019
Coalition flags first elected Senate plan
Jacqui Lambie secures six-year position in Canberra
Urgent - please support democracy in the senate
Coalition-Labor Deal On Rotation Of Members Confirmed By Senate
Media asleep at the wheel on stolen senate seats

I guess, because I have responded, this is not spam from you freediver.  Only the FOURTH Thread you have started on the same topic.

Your Forum so I recognise you are free to do what you like.

You are correct Aussie, this is indeed a very popular topic. No doubt because of the lack of adequate coverage in the mainstream media.

Here is a full list of threads about it that were started by myself and others:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/broken-promises-stolen-senate-seats.html#public-pesters-antony-green

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 8:49pm:

You are correct Aussie, this is indeed a very popular topic. No doubt because of the lack of adequate coverage in the mainstream media. Here is a full list of threads about it that were started by myself and others: http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/broken-promises-stolen-senate-seats.html#public-pesters-antony-green

bullshit FD...

read between the line...

Aussie is telling you that you are FLOGGING a dead horse...

your inability to understand the Australian public is astounding..

you are like a 'greens/PUP" voter...  ::)

I do realise that some people would prefer this was swept under the carpet, mechanic. Do you have anything relevant to add?

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 9:05pm:

I do realise that some people would prefer this was swept under the carpet, mechanic. Do you have anything relevant to add?

No-one has, given this is the FOURTH Thread you have started on EXACTLY the same topic.

Fair enough. I'm sure this thread will drop off the board in no time at all then.

Unless of course people are still interested in the theft of Senate seats, from right under the public's nose. Do you know anyone who might be interested Aussie? It still counts even if you merely want to voice your displeasure at this topic getting airtime.

Interestingly, even in the very first thread you felt compelled to announce your disinterest, and you have repeatedly announced your lack of interest in every single thread since. That is a whole lot of disinterest you've got there Aussie.

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 9:05pm:

I do realise that some people would prefer this was swept under the carpet, mechanic. Do you have anything relevant to add?

do I have anything relevant to add??

are you kidding me... ????

this is coming from a person who runs a forum that still runs a sub forum for PUP who is deregistered..

and also other sub forums that have Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard logos ..

its like you are living in the last century..  ::)

wake up and small the bacon FD..

the world has left you behind..

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 9:20pm:

Fair enough. I'm sure this thread will drop off the board in no time at all then. Unless of course people are still interested in the theft of Senate seats, from right under the public's nose. Do you know anyone who might be interested Aussie? It still counts even if you merely want to voice your displeasure at this topic getting airtime. Interestingly, even in the very first thread you felt compelled to announce your disinterest, and you have repeatedly announced your lack of interest in every single thread since. That is a whole lot of disinterest you've got there Aussie.

You misunderstand what my interest is freediver.  My interest, (in this Thread) and those of others, is that you 'spam' your own Forum on  EXACTLY the same topic, and then, (because it suits your agenda) you tell us that no matter how many times the same issue is raised in a new topic, adnauseum, so long as anyone responds in an exact duplicate Thread, it is not spam.

Your Forum.  You make the Rules and I can assure you, I'll abide by them.

Here is Aussie mocking another poster for bumping a thread they consider to be spam.


Aussie wrote on Sep 5^th, 2016 at 6:59pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 5th, 2016 at 6:57pm: Aussie wrote on Sep 5th, 2016 at 9:59am: Setanta wrote on Sep 4th, 2016 at 10:24pm: Sticky on the feedback forum. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172571481 Yeas, thanks.  I thought I read somewhere here an edict that commencing duplicate Threads was not to happen, but I cannot find it. Anyone? Speaking of duplicate threads how many now have you started questioning forum rules?   :) Dunno, but whenever I do, there are always idiots who make dumb arse comments like that, so I am quite safe.

SW got owned, wot?

Aussie is correct about the public interest, you are correct about the way the senate is dealt with after a DD. As you have pointed out there is bipartisan support but when either of the major parties are making decisions, you can bet it will be in their own interests and these are the same people that you need to change it.

Unless there is something constitutional you can side swipe them with, and there is not, don't expect change. It is a bit of a dead horse and on the nose.

It will get a lot smellier over the next 3 years until it takes effect, but there is plenty we can do about it in that time, and I suspect that is the plan by the minor parties in not making a bigger fuss right now.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/broken-promises-stolen-senate-seats.html#where-to

I think you lot need to put this into perspective. This is a politics forum on a politics website. The outcome of a federal election has been stolen. Both major parties have broken promises they made clearly and repeatedly to the Australian public. An important electoral reform has been destroyed. There will be legislative outcomes, and possibly constitutional outcomes also. The media was complicit through their incompetent reporting on the matter. We should have 100 threads on this topic by the time it is done. We probably will. I really don't understand why anyone would want to go to any effort to downplay this, unless they are happy to subvert democracy to get the political outcome they want. It's not like any of you are being forced to post here and just want to talk about the cricket. Why bother posting on a politics forum about your lack of interest in such an important political issue? You have all been here long enough to realise you can pick and choose what topics interest you. I am thinking of starting one new thread on this for every complaint posted by Aussie.

freediver wrote on Sep 28^th, 2016 at 6:18pm:

I am thinking of starting one new thread on this for every complaint posted by Aussie.

*sucks air in between clenched teeth* whoooo, you sure you got the stamina?  8-)

This is going to go on for at least 3 years. Probably a decade.

A thread on how current Senators intend to deal with this unresolved issue:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1490934119

freediver wrote on Sep 28^th, 2016 at 6:18pm:

I think you lot need to put this into perspective. This is a politics forum on a politics website. The outcome of a federal election has been stolen. Both major parties have broken promises they made clearly and repeatedly to the Australian public. An important electoral reform has been destroyed. There will be legislative outcomes, and possibly constitutional outcomes also. The media was complicit through their incompetent reporting on the matter. We should have 100 threads on this topic by the time it is done. We probably will. I really don't understand why anyone would want to go to any effort to downplay this, unless they are happy to subvert democracy to get the political outcome they want. It's not like any of you are being forced to post here and just want to talk about the cricket. Why bother posting on a politics forum about your lack of interest in such an important political issue? You have all been here long enough to realise you can pick and choose what topics interest you. I am thinking of starting one new thread on this for every complaint posted by Aussie.

ohhhhhh if only you were interested in the GAY industry   and how many gay members you have here.

almost every thread gets turned into a GAY topic..by the usual group.. ::)

they know who they are?

yet nothing is done to stop that??>>.yes this is a political forum I agree.....but most threads are turned into a personal abuse thread..

how do you account for that???..

is good to see you taking notice though...

even if it is self interest.. :(..


can you tell me what you expect Mr and Mrs average to do about the senate,..

if I had my way we would try to do without the bludging bench warmers...

they are costing this country and for bugger all.

Quote:

can you tell me what you expect Mr and Mrs average to do about the senate,..

Write to the twelve senators from your state. Ask them the question posed in the link, and post any responses you get in the link:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1490934119

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2017 at 11:32am:

Quote: can you tell me what you expect Mr and Mrs average to do about the senate,.. Write to the twelve senators from your state. Ask them the question posed in the link, and post any responses you get in the link: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1490934119

think I will wait and see what responses you get first up??..

::)


after all you voted for these people..

every australian does have a choice....well last I heard we did..

and still they keep voting for senators..

in fact to read some of our lefty chums on here...the more the senate stuffs up the elected govt  the better they like it.. ::) ::)

what do they care who or how long they are there.. as long as they are stopping the govt from working.. >:(

I'd much rather read about FD's hemorrhoid cushion ...

This could set the cat among the pigeons:


Quote:

Family First ex-senator Bob Day's election ruled invalid by High Court http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-05/family-first-bob-day-election-ruled-invalid-by-high-court/8417204 Former Family First senator Bob Day was not validly elected at last year's federal poll, the High Court has found. In order to determine his replacement, a special recount of Senate ballots in South Australia will be held.

At the moment Labor and Liberal have a cosy relationship where they each gain one Senate seat by breaking their promise to each other. If the Senate recount in South Australia produces different outcomes with the two different methods, one of the major parties may suddenly rediscover its spine.

South Australia Senate recount could be perfect storm

http://www.ozpolitic.com

The South Australian Senate recount could upset a cosy, but thoroughly undemocratic agreement between Labor and the Coalition. Senator Bob Day has been disqualified and stripped of his Senate position, forcing a recount of the South Australian Senate votes from the last federal election. After the election last year, Labor and the Coalition agreed to break a repeated promise they had made to each other and to the Australian public, in the form of two bipartisan Senate resolutions to use a new, fairer method to allocate long term (6 year) Senate terms after a double dissolution election. As a result, they each get an extra Senate seat from 2019 to 2022. In NSW, Labor’s Deborah O’Neill stole a seat from the Greens’ Lee Rhiannon. In Victoria, the Liberal’s Scott Ryan stole a seat from Derryn Hinch.

This was an unusual outcome. Under almost any other circumstances, the major parties would have held each other to account on their promise. If the two vote counting methods produce different outcomes in South Australia, those "other circumstances" could come back to unravel the agreement. If one of the major parties gains or loses a seat because of the vote counting method, there is a good chance that one of them will decide it is no longer in their interest to keep the agreement they made last year. They may decide to keep the promise they repeatedly made to the Australian public. This would of course be acutely embarrassing for them. They managed the media coverage so well last year that almost no media outlets mentioned the broken promises, so they would have a lot of explaining to do.

Fingers crossed for interesting times ahead.

More information: http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/broken-promises-stolen-senate-seats.html

posted in wrong topic...Damn!

Redmond Neck wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 9:31am:

posted in wrong topic...Damn!

No thats ok Red - FD really appreciates any sort of reply to something he is literally the only person on the planet who cares about.

freediver wrote on Sep 28^th, 2016 at 6:18pm:

I am thinking of starting one new thread on this for every complaint posted by Aussie.

;D ;D ;D

As an inveterate whinger, Aussie never disappoints.

Don't wait, you'd better start right now to keep up with him.

Effendi, why have you spammed the entire Forum with this tedious crap only you give a stuff about?

So, what would the electoral reform be? Do we change the voting system from STV to an open-list system where the elector chooses ONE person on a list?

The issue is with the downstream of preferences, in my view.

This particular issue is about how six year senate terms are allocated after a double dissolution election. It will probably take a referendum to resolve adequately.

I have now had two politicians from two different parties tell me that the recount method was used in 2016. In fact, the order-elected method was used.

A Labor politician told me today that a recount in South Australia would take the form of a "special count" in which only Bob Day's votes would be redistributed. That does not entirely make sense. I would expect a full recount for all 12 senators. Does anyone have any more info on this?

http://www.aec.gov.au/

Topic of public interest
Senate vacancy South Australia
On 5 April 2017, the High Court determined that a special count be conducted to elect a new representative to the Senate from South Australia in order to fill a vacancy created by the disqualification of Mr Bob Day.

The AEC notes that the decision requires further directions by a Justice of the High Court. Upon receiving these directions the AEC will conduct the special count.

Further information will be provided when it is available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_Senate_appointments#List_of_invalid_elections_and_appointments_to_the_Senate

This is a list of people who have been declared to have been elected or appointed to the Australian Senate that the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, has subsequently declared to be void. Some of these have actually sat in the Senate and participated in proceedings however the High Court has held that their presence did not invalidate the proceedings of the Senate.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Culleton

On 3 February 2017, the High Court determined the Senate reference, unanimously finding that Culleton had been ineligible for election to the Senate. At the time of the 2016 election he was subject to being sentenced to imprisonment for up to two years, which under Constitution section 44(ii) rendered him ineligible for election. This had not been affected by the subsequent annulment of the finding of guilt; the annulment had operated only from the time of the annulment. The vacancy should be filled by a special count of the ballot papers. Any directions necessary to give effect to the conduct of the special count should be made by a single Justice. However, the Court anticipated that a simple recount, as if Culleton had not been a candidate, would make the votes cast for him (so far as they were "above the line", which was 96% of them) would flow through to the next One Nation candidate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Georgiou

A consequence of this ruling was that the ballots underwent a special count discounting Culleton's position on the paper, and Georgiou was elected in his place.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2017/51.html

On 3 February 2017, this Court answered questions referred to it as the Court of Disputed Returns by the President of the Senate. The answer to question (a) was to the effect that there is a vacancy in the representation of Western Australia in the Senate for the place for which Senator Rodney Norman Culleton was returned. It was further ordered that the vacancy should be filled by a special count of the ballot papers and any directions necessary to give effect to the conduct of the special count should be made by a single Justice. On 2 March 2017, Justice Keane made further orders. The special count has been undertaken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_special_election_in_Western_Australia,_2014

A half-Senate election for the election of six Senators occurred in Western Australia on 5 April 2014.[1] Preferences were distributed on 29 April 2014.[2][3] The outcome was 3 Liberal, 1 Labor, 1 Green and 1 Palmer United Party. Compared to the 2013 result, the Sport party's Wayne Dropulich was replaced by Zhenya Wang of the Palmer United Party.
The election was called after the result of the 2013 Australian federal election for the seats was voided by the High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, on 20 February 2014. The election came about as a result of 1,375 ballot papers being lost during an official recount in November 2013. The High Court ruled that because the number of lost ballots far exceeded the margin for the two remaining Senate seats, the only acceptable remedy was to throw out the results and hold a fresh election. This decision set in motion the process of a special election.[4][5]
The election is unprecedented in Australian federal politics. An election was held in South Australia in 1907 for the election of one senator under a previous electoral system. Half-Senate elections without a corresponding Australian House of Representatives election have occurred several times due to effluxion of time, the last one having been held in 1970.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blundell_v_Vardon#Vardon_v_O.27Loghlin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_Senate_appointments

Still not sure how to interpret this:

Statement from the Australian Electoral Commission: AEC to conduct special count for WA Senate

http://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2017/03-02.htm

The AEC will conduct a special count in Perth on Tuesday, 7 March 2017 to identify which candidate is entitled to be elected to the Senate from Western Australia, to the place left vacant by the disqualification of Mr Rodney Culleton by the High Court decision of 3 February.

This follows the provision of directions today by His Honour Justice Keane of the High Court specifying how the special count of votes will be conducted.

The special count will not require the manual handling of any Senate ballot papers, as the AEC will use the voter preference data already taken from the ballot papers of votes cast at the 2016 Western Australian Senate election to complete the special count.

The special count will involve voter preferences for the now disqualified candidate Mr Rodney Culleton being disregarded, with these voter preferences now to be counted to the next preferred candidate recorded on each ballot paper, with subsequent preferences to be treated as altered accordingly. Once this is completed, a distribution of preferences will then occur.

Under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 candidates who contest federal elections cannot be present to observe the process. Candidates are, however, able to appoint a scrutineer to observe the process on their behalf.

Media or other members of the public will not be permitted to observe the special count.

Once the special count is completed, the Australian Electoral Officer for Western Australia will provide the result to the High Court of Australia for its consideration.  Accordingly, the AEC will be issuing no public announcement of the result of the special count while this matter is before the Court.

Background
On 3 February 2017, the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns determined that Mr Rodney Culleton was disqualified from being elected at the 2016 Senate election for Western Australia due to the operation of section 44(ii) of the Constitution.  The Court has ordered that the vacancy created by Mr Culleton's disqualification should be filled by a special count of the votes cast at the 2016 election with directions necessary to give effect to that special count to be made by a single Justice.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2017 at 8:21am:

This particular issue is about how six year senate terms are allocated after a double dissolution election. It will probably take a referendum to resolve adequately.

But, doesn't this relate to the specific voting system of 'Single Transferable Vote'? This manner of voting can be changed by legislation, although a constitutional amendment would also be sensible.

Hold on, the Constitution states that in the event of vacancies in the Senate, the successor must be a member of the same political party, so what's this about redistributing preferences to other parties?

Bob Day's seat is constitutionally required to go to a Family First member.

Auggie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2017 at 3:34pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 8th, 2017 at 8:21am: This particular issue is about how six year senate terms are allocated after a double dissolution election. It will probably take a referendum to resolve adequately. But, doesn't this relate to the specific voting system of 'Single Transferable Vote'? This manner of voting can be changed by legislation, although a constitutional amendment would also be sensible.

It is vaguely related to it, in the sense that we are talking about democracy.


Quote:

Hold on, the Constitution states that in the event of vacancies in the Senate, the successor must be a member of the same political party

The constitution does not even recognise political parties.

Quote:

The constitution does not even recognise political parties.

I refer you to Section 15, paragraph 2 of the Australian Constitution:

"Where a vacancy has at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of a State and, at the time when he was so chosen, he was publicly recognized by a particular political party as being an endorsed candidate of that party and publicly represented himself to be such a candidate, a person chosen or appointed under this section in consequence of that vacancy, or in consequence of that vacancy and a subsequent vacancy or vacancies, shall, unless there is no member of that party available to be chosen or appointed, be a member of that party.

Where:

(a) in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, a member of a particular political party is chosen or appointed to hold the place of a senator whose place had become vacant; and

(b) before taking his seat he ceases to be a member of that party (otherwise than by reason of the party having ceased to exist);

he shall be deemed not to have been so chosen or appointed and the vacancy shall be again notified in accordance with section twenty-one of this Constitution.

The name of any senator chosen or appointed under this section shall be certified by the Governor of the State to the Governor-General."

OK. In this case, the court has determined that the Senator was not legitimately elected in the first place. It is the outcome of the election that has been called into question. It is not merely a matter of a Senator retiring or similar.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2017 at 6:39pm:

OK. In this case, the court has determined that the Senator was not legitimately elected in the first place. It is the outcome of the election that has been called into question. It is not merely a matter of a Senator retiring or similar.

Ok, but isn't it a matter of the political party? If FF won the seat, it doesn't matter who the person was, unless people were voting for Bob Day because he was Bob Day. I suppose it's hard to tell.

Ultimately, the voting system to be changed to open-list proportional representation where the elector chooses one person; if that person gets 20% of the vote within that party then they are moved up to the top of the list. It would simplify the voting process and remove the whole preference dealing issue.

They will most likely still win it, if their other candidate gets the preferences.

Not sure what exactly you are proposing. Most people have enough difficulty figuring out how to preference parties. They are not going to take enough interest to order candidates within parties, though both options are currently open to them.

The parties could always use internally democratic mechanisms to determine candidate order.

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2017 at 7:55am:

They will most likely still win it, if their other candidate gets the preferences. Not sure what exactly you are proposing. Most people have enough difficulty figuring out how to preference parties. They are not going to take enough interest to order candidates within parties, though both options are currently open to them. The parties could always use internally democratic mechanisms to determine candidate order.

The system is called 'open-list proportional representation'. Electors won't have to order candidates. They simply mark which person in the respective political party they want to vote for; they mark ONE person. They can just mark the top name, but the votes go to the whole party, but the elector can choose a person at the bottom of the list if they choose; and if that person gets 20% more of the vote then he/she is the first candidate on the list, etc.

Whilst the parties will still determine the order, this at least gives electors a choice to determine a specific candidate within the party list.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2017 at 3:28pm:

A Labor politician told me today that a recount in South Australia would take the form of a "special count" in which only Bob Day's votes would be redistributed. That does not entirely make sense. I would expect a full recount for all 12 senators. Does anyone have any more info on this?

I believe the high court has yet to decide whether or not Family First will still be eligible for the recount - but its widely tipped that they will be, and the Kenyan FF lady will take the seat.

There's been quite a lot about the whys and hows of this recount on the news, so I'm pretty sure you'll find something useful with a bit of googling. Antony Green has written an article about it on his blog.

As of yesterday I cannot find any detail on this recount or a similar one in WA from earlier in the year. For this one they are still waiting on 'specific orders' from a judge on how the recount is to be done. They key question I have no answer for is, are all 12 senators up for re-election, or do they merely continue the count from the point at which Day was elected?

Got a response from the AEC. They are still waiting on instructions from the judge. I am trying to get them to explain how it worked in WA.

Still no response from the AEC on how the WA recount was done.

Any idea how to get a copy of the schedule of directions mentioned here?

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2017/

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2017/51.html

On 2 March this year, Justice Keane gave directions for the Acting Australian Electoral Officer for the State of Western Australia to cause to be undertaken a special count in accordance with the schedule of directions appended to the order. The affidavit of Mr David Lang, filed on 7 March, deposes that the special count was carried out on that day in accordance with the directions given. Mr Lang reports that Mr Peter Georgiou would be placed 11th of the 12 candidates elected.

Having read the affidavit of Mr Lang, we are satisfied that it is appropriate that the Court should now make an order in terms of the declaration sought. It is apparent that no place other than that for which Mr Culleton was returned could be affected by the order sought. Accordingly, we declare that Panagiotis Georgiou is duly elected as a senator for the State of Western Australia for the place for which Rodney Norman Culleton was returned.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2017/45.html - March 2

In Re Culleton (No 2), the Full Court went on to order that the vacancy in the representation of Western Australia in the Senate for the place for which Mr Culleton was returned should be filled by a special count of the ballot papers: see Re Culleton (No 2) at [45] and [68]. All members of the Full Court in this case held that the votes cast in favour of the party of which he was an endorsed candidate should be counted in favour of the next candidate on that list, at least so far as votes above the line for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party are concerned: see Re Culleton (No 2) at [44] and [67]. Accordingly, consistently with that view and consistently with the approach taken by this Court in In re Wood [1988] HCA 22; (1988) 167 CLR 145, 165 to 166, votes indicated for Mr Culleton should be counted to the candidate next in order of the voter’s preference, and the numbers indicating subsequent preferences should be treated as altered accordingly.

Antony Green has come through with the goods:


Quote:

The re-count is done using a provisions designed to deal with deceased candidates. The original tally of formal votes by candidate and the determined quota are re-used. An additional step is undertaken at the start of the count. All of Mr Culleton’s votes are re-examined and distributed to other candidates according to the next preference on the ballot papers. For the rest of the count, any preference that would have reached Mr Culleton instead continues on to the next available preference. After the extra step, the count proceeds as normal, declaring elected candidates, distributing surpluses, then later excluding candidates and distributing preferences. 12 Senators are elected in this count. In all re-counts of this type conducted to date, the only change in the elected Senators concerned the new Senator elected in place of the excluded candidate. So in short, the re-count is for 12 Senators but only the disqualified Senator is replaced. The full distribution of preferences for the special re-count can be found here http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/Federal_Elections/2016/files/wa-senate-dist-prefs-2016fe-special-count-07032017.pdf The original distribution of preferences can be found here http://results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/External/SenateStateDop-20499-WA.pdf

So, there is a possibility of a change in the order of elected Senators, meaning a possible change in who gets the 3 and 6 year terms, depending on how the Senate handles it. There is even a possibility of other Senators losing their seat as a result.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2017 at 8:21am:

This particular issue is about how six year senate terms are allocated after a double dissolution election. It will probably take a referendum to resolve adequately.

From the Constitution:

Quote:

13. Rotation of senators As soon as may be after the Senate first meets, and after each first meeting of the Senate following a dissolution thereof, the Senate shall divide the senators chosen for each State into two classes, as nearly equal in number as practicable; and the places of the senators of the first class shall become vacant at the expiration of three years, and the places of those of the second class at the expiration of six years, from the beginning of their term of service; and afterwards the places of senators shall become vacant at the expiration of six years from the beginning of their term of service. The election to fill vacant places shall be made within one year before the places are to become vacant. For the purposes of this section the term of service of a senator shall be taken to begin on the first day of July following the day of his election, except in the cases of the first election and of the election next after any dissolution of the Senate, when it shall be taken to begin on the first day of July preceding the day of his election.

Note the highlighted part. According to the Constitution, the Senate chooses how to divide itself into "two classes" but the Constitution does not specify how this division is to be done. Each new Senate can basically divide itself as it pleases.

I agree that a referendum is needed to resolve this. The Senate shouldn't have free choice on the procedure for division. The exact procedure for allocating Senators - the recount method - should be inserted into the Constitution so as to bind all future Senates to this fair method.

I don't think we should make any constitutional change overly prescriptive. The current version is what allowed the shift from the order elected to the recount method. Otherwise it probably would have never gotten off the ground. All that is necessary is a clause stating that the method for allocating Senators must be publicly known prior to the election. This would effectively bind the Senate to Senate resolutions.

From the AEC website home page - it is still before the court, so there is no official outcome yet. Not sure how everyone seems to know the outcome anyway.

Topic of public interest
Senate vacancy South Australia
As directed by the High Court, the AEC conducted a special count of South Australian senate ballot papers at the AEC state office in Adelaide on Thursday 13 April 2017.

The High Court also directed the Australian Electoral Officer for South Australia to provide the result of the special count to the Court for its consideration.   

The AEC does not declare the outcome of the special count, this being a matter for the Court.  Accordingly, the AEC will not be issuing any public announcement while this matter is before the Court.

On 5 April 2017, the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns determined that Mr Robert (Bob) Day was disqualified from nominating for the 2016 South Australian Senate election due to the operation of section 44 of the Constitution.

Bump for John Smith - here is the previous thread on the topic. As you can see, the new thread was not a copy and paste job.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 12:31pm:

Bump for John Smith - here is the previous thread on the topic. As you can see, the new thread was not a copy and paste job.

So? You re-wrote the same whinge you were having 3 years ago. Whoop de doo

::)

Can you not see the difference in the content?

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 6:48pm:

Can you not see the difference in the content?

I haven't read it. That's why I asked you if it was a copy paste. I didn't want to waste my time.

I think I'm seeing Double (of this Topic theme)?
No, that's definitely another Seat stolen.

John you cannot even keep your lies in order for one day. What is your real motivation for becoming a cheerleader for electoral fraud?


John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 4:45pm:

You re-wrote the same whinge you were having 3 years ago.

John Smith wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 6:50pm:

I haven't read it. That's why I asked you if it was a copy paste.