Please write to your local federal MPs and senators to support democracy in the senate. Please share on facebook etc also. More info here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1468844101/14#14


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.

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.

What dog do you have in this fight, freediver?  I really could not give a toss about the matter.  Why are you frothing at the mouth about this?

WHY?

I already got my name crossed off the Rolls at the last Election.  That's IT as far as I am concerned. Until the NEXT Federal Election!

Did we just agree on something, Aussie?  ::)

Have a guess Aussie.

I dont understand anything to do with the senate.. so n o good me writing to anyone....its weird and strange and its being taken over by minorities....they have all the POWER   I dont like that...

how they can fix it I have no idea... only to get rid of it all together.....a bunch of freeloaders as far as I am concerned.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2016 at 10:05pm:

Have a guess Aussie.

Why should I guess?  Why not simply provide an answer instead of playing childish hide and seek?

Because what they are doing is wrong. It is a big, blatant cheat, and I fear they will get away with it because the Australian public are too ignorant and confused to see it.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2016 at 10:19pm:

Because what they are doing is wrong. It is a big, blatant cheat, and I fear they will get away with it because the Australian public are too ignorant and confused to see it.

Who is being cheated?  (I don't feel cheated?) 

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2016 at 10:19pm:

Because what they are doing is wrong. It is a big, blatant cheat, and I fear they will get away with it because the Australian public are too ignorant and confused to see it.

well that puts me in my place....

can you tell me in simple language just what have we been cheated out of???>.....

all you lefties have been laughing and saying Turnbull has shot himself in his own foot...

so why didnt you bring this up before the election?>.

Cods it has nothing to do with left and right. I did not bring it up before the election because before the election, both Labor and Liberal were promising to do the right thing and use the new, fairer method that they had been promising to use for the last 20 years. After the election, both Labor and Liberal decided to hand themselves more senate seats by breaking their promise to do the right thing.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2016 at 10:32pm:

Cods it has nothing to do with left and right. I did not bring it up before the election because before the election, both Labor and Liberal were promising to do the right thing and use the new, fairer method that they had been promising to use for the last 20 years. After the election, both Labor and Liberal decided to hand themselves more senate seats by breaking their promise to do the right thing.

And according to Bam, the difference in outcome either way, is minuscule.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2016 at 10:32pm:

Cods it has nothing to do with left and right. I did not bring it up before the election because before the election, both Labor and Liberal were promising to do the right thing and use the new, fairer method that they had been promising to use for the last 20 years. After the election, both Labor and Liberal decided to hand themselves more senate seats by breaking their promise to do the right thing.

what changes did they promise and what changes did they make......and what if anything would be the difference??>>.

you are annoyed they didnt make the changes they promised 20 years ago...

what were they how do they differ to what did change???>..

the senate hasnt functioned for Australia for years....it appears to me just a clone of the Reps...now with a few self interested people who all have a degree in selfhelp... and you want people to complain ....hahaha

cods wrote on Aug 16^th, 2016 at 7:08am:

the senate hasnt functioned for Australia for years

the senate functions exactly as it was designed to do. Nothing wrong with how it's working

John Smith wrote on Aug 16^th, 2016 at 7:44am:

cods wrote on Aug 16th, 2016 at 7:08am: the senate hasnt functioned for Australia for years the senate functions exactly as it was designed to do. Nothing wrong with how it's working

you have your opinion


I have mine.......its not rocket science..everyone has an opinion. >:(

you're not claiming an opinion, you're claiming a fact. You said it hasn't worked when it has worked exactly as intended. FACT.

That you don't like how it works is your problem

John Smith wrote on Aug 16^th, 2016 at 7:58am:

you're not claiming an opinion, you're claiming a fact. You said it hasn't worked when it has worked exactly as intended. FACT. That you don't like how it works is your problem

this is tough but I dont care what you think

cods wrote on Aug 16^th, 2016 at 8:01am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 16th, 2016 at 7:58am: you're not claiming an opinion, you're claiming a fact. You said it hasn't worked when it has worked exactly as intended. FACT. That you don't like how it works is your problem this is tough but I dont care what you think

Lying to others is bad enough but you really shouldn't lie to yourself

of course you care ... that's why you reply to every single comment

Aussie wrote on Aug 15^th, 2016 at 10:53pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 15th, 2016 at 10:32pm: Cods it has nothing to do with left and right. I did not bring it up before the election because before the election, both Labor and Liberal were promising to do the right thing and use the new, fairer method that they had been promising to use for the last 20 years. After the election, both Labor and Liberal decided to hand themselves more senate seats by breaking their promise to do the right thing. And according to Bam, the difference in outcome either way, is minuscule.

I'm basing my earlier analysis on some that appeared on Pollbludger that may have been incomplete. What is known is that the order of election method gives two major party Senators - a Victorian Liberal and a NSW Labor - a long term at the expense of Hinch and Rhiannon (Greens). I haven't yet seen complete detailed analysis.

What is clear though is that the Coalition are favouring the order of election method because it gives them a disproportionate number of long term Senate places (16/28) and the ALP favour it because it marginalises the Greens by forcing Greens back to the polls in 3 years in all six states.

I agree with freediver - the s282 method is fairer.

It's worth noting though that if the analysis is correct and complete (I don't know if it is), the difference is not large.

Under both methods, most of crossbenchers would be forced back to the polls in three years - three One Nation, Leyonhjelm (LDP), Bob Day (FFP), one NXT, five out of six Greens. The order of election adds two to this number - Hinch and Rhiannon (Greens).

The only crossbenchers who would get six-year terms under both methods are three Greens (Vic, WA, Tas), Hanson (ONP, Qld), two NXT (SA) and Lambie (Tas).

Order of election - crossbench: 7-13.
S.282 Recount - crossbench: 9-11.

IMO, this is why the major parties are going with the order of election method. They hope to gain seats from the crossbenchers in 2019.

John Smith wrote on Aug 16^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

cods wrote on Aug 16th, 2016 at 8:01am: John Smith wrote on Aug 16th, 2016 at 7:58am: you're not claiming an opinion, you're claiming a fact. You said it hasn't worked when it has worked exactly as intended. FACT. That you don't like how it works is your problem this is tough but I dont care what you think Lying to others is bad enough but you really shouldn't lie to yourself of course you care ... that's why you reply to every single comment

no I dont... your like a bad smell I just cant get rid of you......thats all...

cods wrote on Aug 16^th, 2016 at 9:31am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 16th, 2016 at 8:02am: cods wrote on Aug 16th, 2016 at 8:01am: John Smith wrote on Aug 16th, 2016 at 7:58am: you're not claiming an opinion, you're claiming a fact. You said it hasn't worked when it has worked exactly as intended. FACT. That you don't like how it works is your problem this is tough but I dont care what you think Lying to others is bad enough but you really shouldn't lie to yourself of course you care ... that's why you reply to every single comment no I dont... your like a bad smell I just cant get rid of you......thats all...

see, I told you that you cared. You had every opportunity to 'not care' but you went and proved yourself wrong instead. ;D ;D

Bam wrote on Aug 16^th, 2016 at 9:27am:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2016 at 10:53pm: freediver wrote on Aug 15th, 2016 at 10:32pm: Cods it has nothing to do with left and right. I did not bring it up before the election because before the election, both Labor and Liberal were promising to do the right thing and use the new, fairer method that they had been promising to use for the last 20 years. After the election, both Labor and Liberal decided to hand themselves more senate seats by breaking their promise to do the right thing. And according to Bam, the difference in outcome either way, is minuscule. I'm basing my earlier analysis on some that appeared on Pollbludger that may have been incomplete. What is known is that the order of election method gives two major party Senators - a Victorian Liberal and a NSW Labor - a long term at the expense of Hinch and Rhiannon (Greens). I haven't yet seen complete detailed analysis. What is clear though is that the Coalition are favouring the order of election method because it gives them a disproportionate number of long term Senate places (16/28) and the ALP favour it because it marginalises the Greens by forcing Greens back to the polls in 3 years in all six states. I agree with freediver - the s282 method is fairer. It's worth noting though that if the analysis is correct and complete (I don't know if it is), the difference is not large. Under both methods, most of crossbenchers would be forced back to the polls in three years - three One Nation, Leyonhjelm (LDP), Bob Day (FFP), one NXT, five out of six Greens. The order of election adds two to this number - Hinch and Rhiannon (Greens). The only crossbenchers who would get six-year terms under both methods are three Greens (Vic, WA, Tas), Hanson (ONP, Qld), two NXT (SA) and Lambie (Tas). Order of election - crossbench: 7-13. S.282 Recount - crossbench: 9-11. IMO, this is why the major parties are going with the order of election method. They hope to gain seats from the crossbenchers in 2019.

I wish I understood that.....blimey its complex.. why dont we have the lot go to the polls every 3 years???.. if as you say the major parties can influence the outcome.. wouldnt that stop it?..

although you are lucky you understand what happens to your senate vote.. I dont and I can only guess I am not alone...so we go and elect anything...

you know there is a lot of interest in politics on forums like this... but not everyone is interested its just a chore to them

John Smith wrote on Aug 16^th, 2016 at 9:36am:

cods wrote on Aug 16th, 2016 at 9:31am: John Smith wrote on Aug 16th, 2016 at 8:02am: cods wrote on Aug 16th, 2016 at 8:01am: John Smith wrote on Aug 16th, 2016 at 7:58am: you're not claiming an opinion, you're claiming a fact. You said it hasn't worked when it has worked exactly as intended. FACT. That you don't like how it works is your problem this is tough but I dont care what you think Lying to others is bad enough but you really shouldn't lie to yourself of course you care ... that's why you reply to every single comment no I dont... your like a bad smell I just cant get rid of you......thats all... see, I told you that you cared. You had every opportunity to 'not care' but you went and proved yourself wrong instead. ;D ;D

whew... ok you win.

HI ALL

The current situation is ?
The same old Smelly-creek in a barbwire canoe. The only problem is Turdballs has lost the paddle. 8-) 8-)

We need a good cleaner

---

The Senate needs to be representative.

Currently Tasmanian Senators have 14 times the representative voting power of a NSW Senators.

Quote:

And according to Bam, the difference in outcome either way, is minuscule.

According to Bam, the difference was the outcome of the Senate election. In what sense is that miniscule Aussie?


Quote:

what changes did they promise and what changes did they make

They promised to use the recount method instead of the order of election method. See the OP in the link I gave in the OP of this thread.


Quote:

and what if anything would be the difference

It is hard to tell without actually doing the recount method, but most likely it will affect which senators get 3 vs 6 year terms.


Quote:

you are annoyed they didnt make the changes they promised 20 years ago... what were they how do they differ to what did change???>..

Changes that they have been repeatedly promising for 20 years. It was an agreement to do something specific in the event of a double dissolution election, not something they promised 20 years ago and then forgot about.


Quote:

the senate hasnt functioned for Australia for years....it appears to me just a clone of the Reps...now with a few self interested people who all have a degree in selfhelp... and you want people to complain ....hahaha

It has been working as a house of review. Fundamentally, it is a check on power of the PM and lower house.


Quote:

I wish I understood that.....blimey its complex.. why dont we have the lot go to the polls every 3 years???.. if as you say the major parties can influence the outcome.. wouldnt that stop it?..

To put it simply, the senators themselves decide, as a group (by majority vote), who loses their seat in 3 years time. They agreed to do it fairly and repeatedly affirmed this promise. But when it came to the crunch, they acted out of self interest.

Swagman wrote on Aug 16^th, 2016 at 2:32pm:

The Senate needs to be representative. Currently Tasmanian Senators have 14 times the representative voting power of a NSW Senators.

Thats easily fixed
Abolish the States

The senate is likely to vote on this when it first sits on August 30. Please make sure you let them know your disapproval before then.

The outcome of both methods will be made available by the AEC before the senate votes.

I thought they were going to vote on this on August 18, but there is nothing in the media.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalition-and-labor-team-up-to-clear-out-crossbench-senators-in-2019-20160812-gqr29k.html

The Australian Electoral Commission has also provided advice, seen by Fairfax Media, regarding which senators would receive six-year terms using the alternative "recount" method - who would have been elected if it had been a half-Senate election.

Using this method - set out as a possible way forward under section 282 of the Electoral Act - Senator Hinch would have been elected at the expense of Liberal Scott Ryan in Victoria, and Senator Rhiannon would have beaten out Labor's Deborah O'Neill in NSW.

The top six for the other four states would be the same whichever method was used.

In a letter to Clerk of the Senate, Rosemary Laing, dated August 11, electoral commissioner Tom Rogers notes the Senate is not bound to follow the section 282 recount.

Senator Di Natale said the Greens support the recount method as "the fairer of the two" and "regardless of the outcome" for the party.

"The Labor and Liberal parties will stop at nothing to shut out everyone else from their cosy duopoly. Here they are again, voting together, to stop diverse voices in Parliament," he said, observing that both parties had previously advocated for the recount proposal.

This Ship has sailed, freediver. 

In a couple of years they will pass another resolution promising to use the new, fairer method next time there is a double dissolution election.

Why did the media make so little of the fact that Labor and Liberal both reneged on resolutions they had passed previously? Most failed to mention it, as if the decision was entirely arbitrary.

August 31? Talk about sloppy journalism. But at least they reported on it.

http://australianpolitics.com/2016/08/31/senate-rotation-of-members-confirmed.html

The Senate has voted to confirm the agreement between the Coalition and the ALP on the rotation of senators following the double dissolution election.

As has occurred on each of the previous six occasions when double dissolutions have been held (1914, 1951, 1974, 1975, 1983 and 1987), the first six senators elected in each state have received six-year terms, whilst the second group of six will serve for three years. The rotation is required under Section 13 of the Constitution.

The major parties rejected the recount method whereby the Senate votes are recounted as if it was a half-Senate election. This method would have meant that the Liberal and Labor Parties each lose one long-term senator (Scott Ryan and Deborah O’Neill) in favour of minor parties (Derryn Hinch and Lee Rhiannon).

The rotation was approved by 50 votes to 15. The four One Nation senators and Jacqui Lambie supported the proposal. The Greens, Nick Xenophon Team, David Leyonhjelm, Bob Day and Derryn Hinch all opposed the resolution.

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?

Onward and forward. He ain't heavy; he's Freediver's baggage:

http://www.bloggingadeadhorse.com/images/CarryHorse.jpg