Senate debates
Tuesday, 13 February 2018
Parliamentary Representation
Rotation of Senators
3:38 pm
Steve Martin (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Hansard source
I seek leave to make a short statement of not more than two minutes.
Leave granted.
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.
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.
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.
No comments