No one's rushing to help Pocock get more senators for the ACT

@Elf
I don’t think Pocock has shore up his job at all. As one of those who voted for him at the last election, I can attest that he has done a fine job in representing the interests of the ACT. No doubt, his detractors will disagree – but, given they were never going to vote for him, that’s somewhat irrelevant.

If anything, increasing the number of Senators in the ACT, will (arguably) result in a conservative being successful.

It’s easy for independents though isn’t it. He can take the popular opinion regardless of which side of politics it come from because he will never have to worry about the budget or how it affects any other promises or policies. I haven’t seen him back an unpopular opinion that maybe for our greater good. Unless the Libs are stupid enough to throw Zed or someone similar up, I think he will be gone next time.

@Elf
“He can take the popular opinion regardless of … ”
He can only vote on the matters before him. Perhaps you can list an “unpopular opinion that maybe for our greater good” which Pocock has not backed?

As I said, I voted for him, and I think he’s delivering on his promise to represent us, so I’ll most likely vote for him again. Perhaps the issue, for you, is that your view of what’s important, is in the minority of electors in the ACT.

The only interests being represented by Pocock and the other teals are those of yhe two billionaires who bank rolled them. They call themselves “independents” because “puppet” has negative connotations, but is far more accurate.

@Ken M
Yeah whatever … yet more of your unsupported vitriole based on … well absolutely nothing.

Based on, well, climate 200 bankrolling them, and as we all know, billionaires never want anything for making massive political donations.

@Ken M
I’ve challenged you before on that and got crickets, so I don’t expect a response, but I’ll ask again anyway.

Perhaps you can demonstrate, how the voting pattern, of any current MP, who received Climate 200 funding, has benefitted any of the donors.

You are very vocal on your nonsensical claims – but very short, when it actually comes to providing supporting evidence. Probably because you like to be the empty vessel – and just make a lot of noise.

The vast majority of funding for all the independents came from local supporters, not climate 200.

You can look it up, funding is on the public record. , but I know post-fact Komrade Ken won’t allow facts to inform his beliefs.

Sure is, and Pocock is the ultimate “mirror, mirror on the wall” pollie

@Futureproof
The fact that your go to reference material is a fairy tale, Fp, pretty much sums up how puerile your comments are.

Glad that misinformation bill got canned, so I can still comment.

@Futureproof
Oh never fear, Fp, your comments can never be confused with information – let alone misinformation.

Most of your comments are TLDNR

@chewy14
“We aren’t remotely under-represented …”
On what basis can you assert that, chewy? The Senate is not a proportional representation chamber, it’s essentially ‘fixed numbers’ as per the Constitution which dictates that each state shall have equal Senate representation. The Senate numbers for the territories are fixed arbitrarily by the federal parliament, based on who knows what?

So while there is no definitive justification, for increasing the number of Senators in the territories, there is equally no definitive justification for not increasing them. It may as well be 4 or 6 Senators per territory as 2.

One benefit of increasing territory Senate representation to 4 Senators, is that it would overcome the issue you see with ‘half Senate elections’ in ACT and NT, – i.e. in line with the states, territory Senatorial terms could be 6 years, and two Senate positions could be up for election every 3 years, unless there is a double dissolution.

Justsaying,
On the same metrics that Pocock is using to claim under representation. If you disagree with his claims, perhaps you should take it up with him.

You’re right that the senate is not a proportional representation chamber, it was originally meant to protect the States interests, which Pocock also ignores. However, we are not a state so that logic doesn’t apply either, and it doesn’t even make sense for the states any more either in my opinion.

I don’t actually see any issue with half Senate elections, it currently works well with 2 in the territories. I was simply pointing out a problem with increasing tenure to 6 years with the current numbers.

The Senate is supposed to represent all Australians, there’s no justification whatsoever that increasing the Territory representation will improve overall governance for the country. It’s simply an attempted power grab.

“we are not a state” was the conservative logic that was attempted in 1973 to deny ACT residents ANY Senate representation.

Using what the Constitution said – in 1901 – was Senate representation by the States. So much later, their argument was that the Territories were not mentioned in that original Constitution – so were not entitled to any Senators. At All.

Completely ignoring the point that there was one very good reason that they were not mentioned = neither territory existed in 1901.

Yes Peter,
And it’s still true today.

The original reasoning for the state’s representation in the Senate doesn’t apply to us for very good reasons.

@chewy14
I do disagree with the position that ACT/NT are under- (Pocock) or over-represented (yourself) as there is no objectivity to these statements. There are no metrics for determining the number of Senators at state (other than the constitutional requirement of equal number for all states) or territory (arbitrary – I can find no explanation as to why territories were given 2, not 4 or 6 or whatever) level.

Given there is no proscribed formula for determining the number of Senators for the territories, it is difficult to present an argument one way or the other on whether or not to increase those numbers.

As you will know, the original intention, of the ‘equal Senate representation of the states’ principle in the Constitution, was to protect the rights of electors from smaller jurisdictions – which at the time of writing of the Constituion was the smaller states. I believe that principle should equally apply to the other two smaller jurisdictions – i.e. ACT and NT. Obviously increasing the number of Senators will give territorians a greater say in the activities of the federal parliament, without bringing them to an equal footing with smaller states.

I think Pocock’s position of 6 Senators for the territories is an over reach – the states (read the majority of federal parliament) simply won’t agree to it. I think the original recommendation from the Joint Standing Committee, to increase Senate representation for the teritories to 4 is a good compromise.

Yes, it’s true that the territories are not states, but the federal parliament has determined the territories shall have ‘state like’ powers, in that they are able to enact their own independent (of any state) legislation. Furthermore, the territories are part of the national government framework, by their participation in National Cabinet, receiving a slice of the ‘GST pie’ and other federal government financing – such as grants, etc.

For the moment, this is a matter that will probably be constrained to debate in RiotACT, as I suspect that Pocock’s bill will fail. Given none of the other ACT MPs are willing to support it, it’s highly unlikely that the rest of parliament will be interested in agreeing to the bill.

There IS a formula for the number of Senators for the States:
“Section 24 also explains that each state shall elect members to the House of Representatives based on that state’s population. Since Federation, Australia’s population has grown a lot and therefore so have the number of elected representatives. When the number of members increases, this has to be balanced with the number of senators. Currently there are 76 senators – 12 for each state and 2 for each territory – and there are 151 members in the House of Representatives.”
https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/why-does-there-have-to-be-76-senators-in-the-senate

So – yet another archaism in the Constitution – not referring to the
“territories”

@Peter Graves
Unfortunately, you are wrong. The Constitution does not proscribe the actual number of Senators for each jurisdiction (i.e. state or territory). That is the purvey of the parliament under Section 23:
“The Parliament may make laws increasing or diminishing the number of senators for each State, but so that equal representation of the several Original States shall be maintained and that no Original State shall have less than six senators.”

Section 24, to which you tefer, only relates to the House of Representatives: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.”

So my comment stands.

In that case, you should correct the Parliamentary Ediucation Office (that’s the “peo.gov.au” quoted). In case you didn’t notice, I was quoting directly from its page.

“As you will know, the original intention, of the ‘equal Senate representation of the states’ principle in the Constitution, was to protect the rights of electors from smaller jurisdictions – which at the time of writing of the Constituion was the smaller states.”

Justsaying,
And this is the exact principle that I’m saying doesn’t even hold for the states anymore and is actually far more problematic than helpful in giving voters in those smaller states far more power for their single vote compared to the bigger states.

And from an overall governance perspective I think it has led to poor outcomes both with major party Senators voting with their block and at the same time allowing fringe independent/smaller party senators to wield far more power than their actual overall vote should command at a national level.

Extending that existing problem to the ACT/NT only makes the situation worse.

And you can see this when people like Pocock are pressed for how it would improve national governance, there are no good answers, just a fall back to the weak rhetoric of “better” representation or getting “better” outcomes locally for those territories.

And that’s because he’s trying to fix a non-existent problem.

@Peter Graves
In case you didn’t notice, I was quoting directly from the Constitution – which I think you will agree is the definitive and legal source, irrespective of what the PEO says.

I’ll leave it to you to decide if you want to correct the PEO.

@chewy14
While I can see you are not happy with the existing arrrangement, our constitutional democracy allows the electorate to select whoever they want to represent them – while at the same time it neither acknowledges nor accounts for the operation of major parties or independents.

As for better representation? Perhaps governance would be improved if the politicians actually represented their electorate (HoR) or state/territory (Senate) which is obviously the purpose of our style of democracy. This would (arguably) lead to greater communication and negotiation to progress legislation, rather than the blind loyalty expected (Coalition MPs) or demanded (Labor MPs).

Justsaying,
Once again, how does Pocock’s proposal result in any improvements to the things you mention from an overall national governance perspective?

What problems exist with the current representation of the territories and how will an increase in representation improve them from a national perspective?

The best that Pocock has seemed to come up with is that per capita, the ACT doesn’t receive as much infrastructure funding. Which is perfectly reasonable as we are a well off city and economies of scale will always reduce the required proportion of those numbers.

I also see that he never mentions the NT around that metric because they actually receive significantly more federal funding due to their demographics.

@chewy14
The problem that exists, is that the current Senate representation of the territories is 1/6 of that of the states. So ACT and NT residents are under-represented in comparison to the states. That is a mathematical absolute that cannot be disputed.

Nobody is suggesting that the territories should have the same Senate but it is appropriate to reduce the disproportion, and therefore give territorians, via their representatives, a greater say in the Senate’s legislative process.

I don’t know why you raise per capita federal infrastructure funding – it has nothing to do with the matter of increasing Senate representation.

“The problem that exists, is that the current Senate representation of the territories is 1/6 of that of the states.”

Once again why is it a “problem”? You still haven’t given one actual reason why the current level of representation has led to poor outcomes. What is the governance failure that it will fix? It seems solely to be a power grab.

“So ACT and NT residents are under-represented in comparison to the states”

We aren’t a state, so comparing our numbers to theirs is meaningless. By population, we are already significantly over represented and that is a mathematical certainty that cannot be refuted.

“but it is appropriate to reduce the disproportion, and therefore give territorians, via their representatives, a greater say in the Senate’s legislative process.”

No, it isn’t appropriate at all and would make votes in each territory worth significantly more than most other Australians. That is actually a problem and already leads to actual issues now with smaller state senators wielding more power than they should have.

Why should we get a greater say than everyone else? Sounds completely inequitable.

“I don’t know why you raise per capita federal infrastructure funding – it has nothing to do with the matter of increasing Senate representation.”

As I said, Pocock is the one who raised it in support of his proposal. I agree with you, it has nothing to do with Senate representation.

@chewy14
You seem to be basing your objection on population differentials – “make votes in each territory worth significantly more than most other Australians”.

That is a false premise. The makeup of electoral divisions in the House of Reps is related to population … as evidenced by the larger number of HoR MPs in the larger states. Under the Constitution, the number of Senators is equal across all states. It was designed to protect the smaller states – otherwise, using your “population logic”, NSW and Victoria aloner would have a very clear majority in the Senate.

The original intention of the Constitution was to ‘discriminate’, if you will, against the larger states, by giving the smaller states an equal say in the Senate. So hopefully, we can forget population distribution and concentrate on jurisdictional representation for the Senate.

“We aren’t a state, so comparing our numbers to theirs is meaningless.”
Both ACT and NT are members of National Cabinet (previously the Council of Australian Governments) – which, as per the terms of reference (https://federation.gov.au/national-cabinet/terms-of-reference):
– comprises the Prime Minister (Chair), the State Premiers and the Territory Chief Ministers; and
– is underpinned by a commitment to genuine partnership between the Commonwealth and States and Territories on issues of national significance.
Nowhere in those terms of reference, are the territories’ representatives (the respective Chief Ministers) seen to be anything but participants on an equal footing with the federal and state leaders.

So, on that basis, it could be argued that, as an equal participant with the states in the Australian national govermental forum, the territories should have equal representation in the states’ house. Naturally, that would never fly but increasing the territories’ ratio of Senators in relation to the states is a start.

Also, increasing the number of territory Senators to 4, would address another inconsistency and allow them to have 6 year terms, with the usual ‘half Senate election’ (double dissolution not withstanding) every 3 years – in line with their state peers.

Oh and I haven’t seen where Pocock has raised per capita federal infrastructure funding, as a justification for increasing territory Senate numbers. Can you point me to the reference please?

Justsaying,
I’m not solely using population numbers as a reason but rather as an example around how the claims of under representation don’t remotely stack up amd how more senators would actually territory residents significantly more power than other Australians.

You seem to be relying on some weird definition that we are a separate “jurisdiction” to avoid the actual fact that we aren’t a state.

The ACT was created to house the seat of government, we were never intended to receive the same rights of a state and it’s downright silly in my opinion to think we should. We can’t just forget the fact that we aren’t a state because it’s the fundamental basis of why the ACT exists.

National cabinet is also absolutely meaningless as a reason to give us more senators. Frankly it’s a weird reference to attempt.

You once again don’t even get over the first hurdle, for the billionth time, what failures of governance have occurred that would suggest more territory Senators would result in better national outcomes?

As above, this is simply a power grab. One which you personally support. I don’t, for all the reasons above.

Until you can outline some actual problems with the current arrangement that would require more territory senators, this discussion is pointless.

@chewy14
Initially on 1 Jan 1900, the states all had 6 Senators – the minimum number there can be under the Constitution. In 1948, the parliament increased state numbers to 10, and then in 1975, and finally in 1984, state Senator numbers were increased to their current 12.

What “failures of governance” did these changes of Senate numbers for the states fix? None.
The reason: changes to the number of Senators (and HoR electoral divisions) is about constituency representation in the parliament. Democracy, determines how governance is managed, by the people ‘having their say’ through their duly elected representatives.

I raised National Cabinet because it is one of the examples in which the territories participate at a federal level, equally with the states, as part of the national structure of government for the whole country. So whether you like it or not, there are 8 ‘self determining’ jurisdictions, in Australia, which together send representatives to the national parliament – 6 of those jurisdictions have an equal and much greater say in our democracy, with respect to the Senate, than the other 2 jurisdictions

What’s broken, is there is no definitive measure for determining the appropriate number of Senators to represent the territories? If such a measure existed, we would not be having this debate.

You will note in the article, that Pocock is suggesting a fix, by proposing a “formula” to provide a baseline method for determining the number of Senators for the territories – i.e. more than one-third but less than two-thirds of the number of state senators. I would add: Senators in both states and territories be an even number – to maintain the equity of half Senate elections.

That “formula”, is how Pocock arrives at 6 Senators for the territories.

Rather than the “the territories are not states” argument, which by the way doesn’t even explain or justify the territories current allocation of 2 Senators, let alone refute the grounds for an increase, perhaps you can counter Pocock’s eminently reasonable suggestion, for baselining territory representation, with an alternative system for baselining jurisdictional representation.

@chewy14
PS Population numbers are not even an example, they are an irrelevancy, when it comes to Senate representation, which are purely apply at a jurisdictional level.

Justsaying,
I’ve already repeatedly said the original justification for the state’s representation of Senators is no longer applicable even to them, so it’s an anchonism for modern Australia. Extending that problem makes things worse, not better. If you want to make changes, they need to improve governance outcomes, otherwise what’s the point.

The original design was to prevent the larger states dominating the smaller ones. That was the specific failure of governance the numbers were designed for and was relevant at the time for the orginal federation of disparate states.

You try and discount population as a reason for not having more territoy Senators but your comparison to the States is the true irrelevancy. We aren’t a state and never will be.

I continually ask for you to provide examples of a failure of governance that the proposal will fix and you continually avoid it because it destroys your argument for more senators.

If the problem you wish to fix is that there is no “formula” for territory representation, then I have an easy solution for you.

Base it on population.

Or how about for simplicities sake, we make it 1/6 if the original states representation and only look for change where an actual failure of goverance can be identified.

You’re the one asking for change, you need to provide a rationale as to why it will improve national governance.

But in reality, your argument for more senators is simply a power grab. There’s no problem you’re trying to fix, it’s simply a wish to concentrate more power in the hands of territory voters.

Far in excess of what most other Australians have.

@chewy14
Oh, so you have decided that “the original justification for the state’s representation of Senators is no longer applicable” therefore it is. The smaller states, are still not being disadvantaged in relation to the larger states, in the Senate – so, on what basis is the justification for state’s representation no longer applicable?

And, now you want representation in both chambers to be based on population – which will mean NSW and Victoria together will dominate the Senate vote. Nice application of democracy, both in practice and as it was intended.

I’m satisfied with the rationale for increasing the number of territory Senators, at the jusridictional level, and I’m satisfied that the methodology provided by Pocock is sound.

As you have a bee in your bonnet, over governance, as opposed to some degree of equity at a jurisdictional level, answer this simple question. How did the changes to the state’s Senate numbers in 1948 and 1984 improve governance? (Hint: I answered the question for you above but you conveniently ignored it).

Justsaying,
“Oh, so you have decided that “the original justification for the state’s representation of Senators is no longer applicable” therefore it is.”

No, I have no idea where you’ve gotten this from.

“And, now you want representation in both chambers to be based on population”

No, I simply gave you a “formula” to assess a reasonable senate representation for the territories in response to your previous comment. No more, no less.

And I’ve never claimed that previous changes improved governance or were a good idea, so your question is irrelevant to this issue.

Once again you’re the one ignoring how these current proposed changes would improve governance at a national level today.

You may be “satisfied” with Pococks proposal to give territory residents significantly more power and better representation than the states, I’m not.

Without an actual reason as to how it will improve governance, once again, it’s a simple power grab.

@chewy14
“I have no idea where you’ve gotten this from”
Oh perhaps I got it from what you typed, in your comment immediately above my last one – and I quote: “I’ve already repeatedly said the original justification for the state’s representation of Senators is no longer applicable even to them” Sheesh – at least own it, when you make a statement, or do I need to start calling you “Goldfish”?

You assert that Pocock’s proposal will “give territory residents significantly more power and better representation than the states”. No justification whatsoever, unless you are still dragging out the irrelevant population comparison between some states and the territories, when it is a fact that Senate representation happens at the state and territory level.

Increasing the number of territory senators, would give those jurisdictions greater comparative representation – which means a louder voice, in deliberations of legislation which directly impact the territory citizens. That’s not a bad thing despite what you think.

Justsaying,
Read your own comment.

“Oh, so you have decided that “the original justification for the state’s representation of Senators is no longer applicable” therefore it is. The smaller states, are still not being disadvantaged in relation to the larger states, in the Senate – so, on what basis is the justification for state’s representation no longer applicable?”

I didn’t “decide” anything, I simply claimed that in my opinion the original rationale for states representation in the Senate no longer really even applies to them. The rest of your comment had little to do with my point.

And I’ve already said why above.

The original design of the Senate was for it to be a states house and represent the individual states rights within it. To prevent smaller states being bullied or controlled by the larger states.

Do you believe that the current makeup and operation of the Senate currently meets that intent or design?

How many Senators vote along State and not party line?

How many vote for issues based on how they benefit their indivudual state over the national interest?

So any change to the Senate that uses the logic of its original design is nonsensical and doesn’t reflect the current operation of the Senate.

And one citizen, one vote does mean that population impacts the value of everyone’s vote when it comes to the Senate. This is a simple fact, that some votes are worth more than others based on population.

If you think the Territories deserve more representation, why don’t you extend that to other Territories like Norfolk or Christmas Islands?

Provide a rationale for excluding them from their own specific Senate representation that doesn’t include their size or population.

And for clarity, their current governance arrangements are also only a feature of that size and population, so isn’t justification for giving them worse treatment.

“Increasing the number of territory senators, would give those jurisdictions greater comparative representation – which means a louder voice, in deliberations of legislation which directly impact the territory citizens. That’s not a bad thing despite what you think.”

Yes, this is the exact bad thing I’m talking about.

Strange that you claim more senators don’t give territory voters more power and representation than the States then turn around and use that exact thing as a selling point.

A simple power grab, with no defined governance benefits for the country.

@chewy14
The current makeup of the Senate, has been elected democratically, by its constituents – as has occurred since Federation. The fact that you don’t like the way democracy works, does not, of itself, mean that original purpose no longer applies. The same criticism could be applied to the HoR, which has very rarely not been dominated by the major parties – where apart from notable exceptions, like Briget Archer, party lines rule over the needs of the individual members’ electorates.

“why don’t you extend that to other Territories like Norfolk or Christmas Islands?”
1. It’s not being mentioned by anyone but you, as a strawman argument.
2. They have representation. Rightly or wrongly, and fill yer boots calling for change, Norfold Island and Jervis Bay territories are represented by ACT Senators and Christmas Island and Cocos and Keeling Island territories are represented by NT Senators.

“Strange that you claim more senators don’t give territory voters more power and representation than the States then turn around and use that exact thing as a selling point.”
I would never have suggested you are mathematically challenged, but that statement causes me to wonder. In what way does 4 or 6 Senators for the territories, give them ‘more power and representation’ than the 12 Senators for each state? So my seliing point, is that it increases the territories’ COMPARATIVE representation, but the states still retain their greater numbers and I stick by that claim.

Justsaying,
I didn’t say anything about whether I like or don’t like how democracy works, I simply provided commentary on how the Senate actually functions.

Nice to see you gloss over the other Territories rights in avoiding a direct question as well.

1. It isn’t a strawman, it just extends the logic you’re attempting here and in the process drills huge holes in your position.

2. We also have representation.

Once again, to be logically consistent, why aren’t you calling for them to have more individual representation in the form of their own Senators?

“In what way does 4 or 6 Senators for the territories, give them ‘more power and representation’ than the 12 Senators for each state?”

Because it literally makes every vote in the territories worth significantly more than votes in every state bar Tasmania. What was that about being mathematically challenged?

@chewy14
I didn’t gloss over the other territory rights … they are irrelevant to this discussion. By all means, if you want to take up a campaign for Senate representation for every other territory, go for it. Errr you might want to actually get elected to parliament first, so that like Pocock, you can propose your bill. Good luck with that.

What don’t you understand about the difference between House of Reps representation, which is by electoral division, as determined by the AEC, and based on population; and the Senate, which is based on jurisdictions – you know, states and territories?

David Pocock is one of two Senators for the ACT, representing that jurisdiction, i.e. a territory. On the other hand, Simon Birmingham, for example, is one of twelve Senators for SA, representing that jurisdiction, i.e. a state. Each of those state and territory Senators has one vote, which they cast, in the Senate, on behalf of their jurisdiction. In toto, each state has 12 votes, which is more than the territories, which each have two votes. Those votes are not proportioned according to population – they are absolute.

Unfortunately, I can’t draw a picture to make it simpler for you to grasp this concept – and because of that I’m done with your nonsense.

Justsaying,
I really don’t know how how you can’t get that the individual worth of a vote for the Senate changes depending on population, when it’s a simple mathematical fact. It doesn’t relate to the difference between the HOR and Senate in the slightest, it just is.

I can’t spell it out for you any clearer.

So after all these posts, you’ve been unable to come up with a single identified failure of governance that would be ameliorated with more territory Senators and you only want to selectively apply your position to Territory’s by pretending that they don’t exist or aren’t “worthy”.

Yeah, you’re right you were done a long time ago.

A simple power grab.

@chewy14
“I really don’t know how how you can’t get that the individual worth of a vote for the Senate changes depending on population …”
Why do you persist in your constant reference to population when the Constitution clearly states that the composition of the Senate is jurisdictional?
Sect 7 – “The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate.”
Perhaps you can point me to the legislation, where the Parliament has provided that, for the purposes of the Senate, each state (and therefore territory) is not a single electorate.
Oh BTW, no such evidence exists.
Further in that same section:
“… equal representation of the several Original States shall be maintained and that no Original State shall have less than six senators.”
“equal representation – so, it’s time to drop your incessant reference to “individual worth of the vote” in the Senate – there is no such thing for the Senate, despite your petulant attempts to fabricate its existence.

The reason is I haven’t identified a failure of, the very subjective concept of, governance, is that electoral reform is about equity of representation. This often happens with HoR redistributions by AEC, which on many occasions result in a state(s) having their number of electorates increased or decreased, without any regard whatsoever to governance. Similarly, as I’ve said, this measure is about (arguably) addressing an inequity in actual Senate numbers between the states and territories (again 12 is much greater than 2). The one true fact, is that there is no absolute method of determining if that inequity does or not exist. Unless you can provide an absolute and irrefutable justification for why territory Senate numbers were set at 2, in 1974 and have not changed – you can only opine that it (the inequity) doesn’t exist, while I opine that it does.

You, (arguably a minority of one), want to apply the position of other territories to the debate. Given they are not identified jurisdictions within the context of national governments and already have Senate and HoR representation, as outlined above, there’s no pretense on my part – just a recognition of the reality as it exists. I’m happy for you to wax lyrical about the inclusion of these other territories, I choose not to participate in that debate. As this is obviously of crticial importance to you, and will ameliorate your sort after failure of governance, I suggest you immediately progress the matter, contact Pocock and request an amendment to his Bill.

Justsaying,
Section 7 of the constitution doesn’t say anything about Senate representation for Territories as you yourself have pointed out multiple times. It’s literally in your own comment.

Strange to see you arguing against yourself with irrelevant comparisons once again.

Comparing us to the States is meaningless as we aren’t one and the constitution specifically separates territory representation out into a different section.

And it also doesn’t refute my point that Senate votes are specifically worth differing amounts based on population. It’s a mathematical fact, it doesn’t need to be mentioned in the constitution to be true.

“The reason is I haven’t identified a failure of, the very subjective concept of, governance, is that electoral reform is about equity of representation”

If it was about equity of representation, then you wouldn’t be adding more Senators to the territories as its about the most inequitable change you could suggest.

It would make Territory votes worth many times that of the citizens of the most populous states. It’s inequitable by design.

“absolute and irrefutable justification for why territory Senate numbers were set at 2, in 1974 and have not changed”

The change was made for both equity and political reasons. The equity reason being that we previpusly had zero representation, so being provided with 2 Senators gave us coverage in the Senate.

They chose the number of 2 for purely political reasons as it would at the time always would have resulted in one Senator for each major party, not affecting the overall mix of power.

It wasn’t to make us comparable to the original states and was never intended to.

“Given they are not identified jurisdictions within the context of national governments and already have Senate and HoR representation, as outlined above, there’s no pretense on my part – just a recognition of the reality as it exists. “

The only reason they are not identified “jurisdictions” is because of size and population.

Which you continually say is irrelevant. Your attempted exclusion of them is just a further rationalisation for your support of this proposed power grab.

The weakness of saying “raise it with parliament” is just transparent obfuscation to a clear logical flaw in your position.

It’s not an important issue to me as I’m quite happy to say they are too small to need individual Senate representation and because giving them representation would not improve governance outcomes at a national level. There’s no justification for additional coverage.

But it is apparently an important issue for you because size and population don’t matter for Senate representation. Well, until you decide they do when it suits.

@chewy14
What S7 of the Constitution specifies, in part, is the composition of the Senate, which (as stated above) is:
“… composed of senators for each State, chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate.”
A single electorate – not an electorate based on population comparison. Trying to bend its meaning to suit your assinine position, doesn’t change the fact that Senate numbers for the states and territories are fixed, by parliament, irrespective of changes in population. Unlike the HoR which does change with the population, as I showed, to reinforce that position. Again, I’ll ask you for factual evidence that the parliament has determined, for the purposes of the Senate, each state (and therefore territory) is not one electorate.

“… Senate votes are specifically worth differing amounts based on population. It’s a mathematical fact, it doesn’t need to be mentioned in the constitution to be true.”
The only mention of population in the Constitution, is with respect to the House of Representatives, wherein S24 states:
“The number of members chosen in the several States shall be in proportion to the respective numbers of their people.”
Your reference to the “worth” of Senate votes is irrelevant. If it were relevant, then the composition of the Senate would be vastly different and, as I’ve stated previously, NSW & Vic would have a clear majority of Senators. Obviously, though perhaps not to you, the intent of S7 of the Constitution was to totally negate the worth of votes based on population. Unless you have factual evidence to prove otherwise, move on.

Also, you state that when Senate representation for the teritories was introduced at the 1975 federal election, that the “change was made for both equity and political reasons. The equity reason being that we previpusly (sic) had zero representation, so being provided with 2 Senators gave us coverage in the Senate.”
So ACT and NT Senate numbers were set to 2 when the state Senate numbers were 10. Surely, it follows, that in 1984, when the Senate numbers for the states were increased to 12, the Senate numbers for the territories should also have increased to preserve the “equity”, which you have finally acknowledged. The current proposal simply redresses that “oversight” by parliament.

“Your attempted exclusion of them …”
I have not attempted to exclude the other territories. I have merely stated a truism – they have not been included in the discussion. It’s not obfuscation, when I state a very real fact – the parliament does determine territory (and state) Senate representation, so where is the logical flaw in suggesting you raise it with said parliament?

“… because size and population don’t matter for Senate representation. Well, until you decide they do when it suits.”
That’s not even a distortion of my position, it’s a total fabrication. I have never argued size and population – that’s your incessant rant. I have argued on territory Senate numbers, based on their jurisdictional standing within the national government structure, using their equal membership of National Cabinet as one example.

Justsaying,
This is going around in circles but I do have to pick up a few points that you are misapplying or misunderstanding in my comments.

You seem fixated on making a constitutional argument around the makeup of the Senate and how it should be composed in applying that argument to the territories so let’s look at that.

Section 7 which you’ve mentioned only discusses Senate composition for the “original states” and was based on the thinking of over 120 years ago in protecting those federating states rights in a new country of disparate and often conflicting states.

The political and governance situation is not remotely the same today.

Section 7 was never intended to provide some universal application of Senate representation on equal jurisdictional grounds, without consideration of other factors for anywhere but those orginal states.

This is seen through both Sections 121 and 122 which reference representation for future states and territories as the parliament “sees fit”.

If you were correct, the representation section of Section 121 in particular would be redundant because they would have included this in Section 7, that all States would be given equal representation on your claimed jurisdictional grounds.

But they didn’t do that because the authors never intended it to be the case. They were only interested in protecting the original states rights as part of the federation agreements. It was never meant to apply to other jurisdictions in the future and is not included anywhere in the text of the constitution.

So your continued comparison to those original states representation as if it means anything to the territories has no constitutional basis.

Which is why I have my position that any change in the Senate numbers should reflect a well defined argument of how it will improve national and unified country governance in modern Australia, rather than rehashing parochial state arguments from 120 years ago that no longer apply.

I reference population not because it needs to be included in the constitution but because it clearly provides a measure of representational equity that can and should be used as a factor when measuring the logic for change.

This is based on my support for the principle of one citizen, one vote of equal worth.

You disagree and that’s fine as your opinion.

“So ACT and NT Senate numbers were set to 2 when the state Senate numbers were 10. Surely, it follows, that in 1984, when the Senate numbers for the states were increased to 12, the Senate numbers for the territories should also have increased to preserve the “equity”, which you have finally acknowledged. The current proposal simply redresses that “oversight” by parliament.”

No, not remotely correct and I don’t know where you’ve pulled this claim from.

Once again, the equity argument applies because previous representation was zero. You’ve even attempted this position yourself in claiming that because other Territories have some representation through the ACT and NT, they don’t need more.

Any representation at all fixes the equity argument, particularly when it can easily be shown that the representation given at the time was far in excess of what a per capita amount would have been.

The specific choice of 2 was for political reasons in that it was the minimum that did not create a partisan bias in the makeup of the Senate. The politicians were pragmatic in their partisanship.

Think about the practical outcomes of making that number 1 or 3 would have meant and the level of support it would have garnered.

So no, that political decision does not provide any equity argument that territory representation should have or needs to be increased in the future. It’s 100% irrelevant to the merits of what’s being currently proposed.

The point about you applying a different argument for the other Territories shows that you do apply a threshold around size and population, even if you’re unwilling to admit it.

There is no defined metric around participation in the “national governance” structures you mention, they are simply a reflection of both the size and population of those areas and its impact on citizens at a national level. You also will find no mention of them within the Constitution, which you seem so keen on referencing.

@chewy14
Yes, you are right this is going around in circles.

So, to bring a quicker conclusion, I’d like to address one aspect of your argument – that the proposal to increase Senate representation in the territories is a “grab for power”.

I’m not sure how increasing the number of territory Senators, to 4 each, is a grab for power, when the states will retain the overwhelming number of Senators, 12 each, (or 4 V 72) in the chamber.

Nevertheless, your “one citizen, one vote of equal worth” principle is exactly that – but it is a grab for power on behalf of NSW & Vic.

The official AEC enrolment figures for the 2022 election (https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/SenateEnrolmentByState-27966.htm) show there were a total of 17,213,433 enrolled voters. Of those vote 5,467,993 (31.77% of the total) and 4,339,460 (25.21% of the total) were enrolled in NSW and Vic respectively.

So, according to you, 56.98% of the ‘voting power’ in the Senate should be represented by the electors of NSW and Vic – but this is not a grab for power. No doubt, as you are keen to say of others – it’s OK when it suits you.

Thankfully, the “the thinking of over 120 years ago in protecting those federating states rights” is preserved in the Constitution and, again thankfully, history has shown it’s unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Justsaying,
To be crystal clear, I have never said that population should be the sole determining factor for representation in the Senate or elsewhere.

Nor have I suggested that I believe the current Senate numbers are ideal. And as I’m sure you agree changing the current Senate arrangements for the original states would be very difficult due to the requirements for a referendum to do so.

But having an existing problem isn’t a reason to extend it further as i’ve said repeatedly.

I have a couple of last questions for you to conclude:

For many years advocates have called for the formation of new states in various areas, using very similar logic that you have been using around improving representation and a “better say” for people on issues that affect them.

Matt Canavan has pushed this line of thinking for a new Nth QLD state to be formed because those regional areas are dominated by the southern QLD areas in their goverance due to the much larger populations in the south.

https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/news/chasm-of-mistrust-calls-for-north-queensland-to-be-its-own-state/news-story/84e04c93f9e222f69a8998564161177c

Would you support the formation of this proposed new state?

If it was successful, would you support giving the new state 12 new Senators in addition to QLDs current 12 as it would allow those citizens a better say in the issues that affect them?

With regards to a power grab, do you ever wonder why it’s progressives calling for more representation in progressive areas, and conservatives calling for more representation in conservative areas?

OK – you avoiding the question, and introducing an unrelated irrelevancy, indicates we have reached a point, where this thread has exhausted its utility.

I didn’t avoid the question, you didn’t even ask one.

You simply posted some thoughts that aren’t in line with my position and then attempted to attribute them to me. I have then further clarified for you on my position in response.

I however, did ask questions…….

Yeah who needs a uni degree or experience working in government, what we really need is plumbers negotiating international trade deals because *something* , *something* life experience….genius level thinking.

A uni degree is not necessary in life. I’m doing fine without a PhD in how Paul Keating tied his shoelaces

Plumbers actually risk their own money. I know you will struggle with an alien concept like that.

Actually understanding international trade is kinda important when negotiating international trade deals Futureproof…some as …smart…as you should see that.

Ah Capital Ret yet another childish insult to back up another dumb argument….please explain how managing a plumbing business is the same as negotiating international trade or planning a federal budget….good luck with that sparky.

Joel Fitzgibbon was an auto electrician. He had a number of portfolios. I’d rather a tradie than a staffer

LMAO Fitzgibbon was in government for much longer than he was an auto electrician. He was also a complete clown who was minister for ag for 6 months and defence for less than 2 years…if that’s your only example you’re stretching champ.

The MAGA dope argument that expertise, training and experience are not necessary to do difficult and important jobs looking a bit shakey Futureproof with Hegseth facing serious assault allegations and Gaetz already having been dumped by Trump because even the GOP are not going to confirm that scumbag. lol

If the ACT wants to be better represented and looked after by the major parties the first thing we should do is send two independents to the Senate and independents to the House.

Don’t make Zed the exception make him the rule, no more safe federal Labor or Liberal seats in the ACT.

@Seano
Absolutely agree … I thought there was a chance with both Pocock and Kim Rubenstein at the last election. I guess while the moderates were happy to see the back of Seselja, two independents was a bridge too far for the Labor-centric ACT.

Hopefully next time JustSaying we’ll get two independent Senators and that will make both majors sit up and take notice.

100% correct Dazzer but the reason they’re not supporting his bill is because the majors, Liberal and Labor don’t want to risk any more independents. More independents mean they have to actually negotiate on legislation and consider our needs and wants.

The Liberal/Labor parties also don’t give a rats that the ACT and NT are unfairly underrepresented. People should stop voting for them at least as a first preference.