Got this response from a lower house MP on September 5.
Quote:2 September 2016
Dear Mr ****,
Thanks for your correspondence about allocation of Senators’ terms of office.
I appreciate the concerns you have raised in your email. However, the Labor Opposition in the Senate supported the Government’s proposal to allocate Senators’ terms of office according to the order in which Senators were elected in each State.
I believe that this is both consistent with the convention of the Senate following a double dissolution election and an adequate reflection of the will of voters.
The rules of the Senate articulated in Odgers’s Senate Practice state that –
‘on the seven occasions that it has been necessary to divide the Senate for the purposes of rotation, the practice has been to allocate Senator’s according to the order of their election.’
I also refer to section 13 of the Constitution, which provides that –
‘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 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…’
I note your concerns about the special re-count provisions in section 282 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth). However, I believe that the Senate’s adherence to both the Constitution and the convention of the Senate does not affect the legitimacy of the Senate. It is still an institution where neither major party has a majority of Senators and the cross bench has actually increased in size this election.
If you would like to talk about this issue with me, please do not hesitate to get in contact with me. You can reach me on .....
Yours sincerely,
I wrote back:
Of course the Labour party position is consistent with convention. The whole point of your party's changes to the electoral act in 1984 - and your party's pledges to the Australian people (1998, 2010) to support those changes in the event of a double dissolution election - was to discard the convention and replace it with the new, fairer method.
In what sense do you consider this to be an "adequate" reflection of the will of the voters? Should the outcome of an election not be the "best" reflection of the will of the voters? Is the new method that your party promised to the Australian public on several occasions (and now abandon) not a better method?
I am curious as to why you failed to address your party's support for the changed method in two different senate motions. Were you unaware of the past promises of your party, or is this a deliberate effort on your part to obfuscate?
Your party's move certainly does effect the legitimacy of the senate. After the next federal election, two senators - one from your party and one from the Liberals - will be occupying stolen senate seats. That your party can so blatantly backflip on a promise made to the Australian people out of short sighted self interest and vote to give yourself more senate seats than you deserve absolutely calls the legitimacy of the senate into question. To take advantage of the constitution in this manner and vote to give yourselves more power in the senate is an affront to democratic principles, which is why your party lied repeatedly to the Australian public in the past when you promised not to do it again. Your insipid efforts to put a positive spin on your party's actions are the essence of why so many Australians despise politicians. You deserve that contempt, and you know it.
Do you think your party will pass another motion in the senate in the coming years to play fair next time? Do you think we will ever be able to trust Labor party senators to fulfill Labor party promises, or is the best we can hope for that one day it will be in your short sighted self interest to do so?