Labor's decision to welch on its pledge to double the number of ACT and Northern Territory senators from two each to four each is a disappointing slap in the face for voters in both jurisdictions.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Adopted as part of federal Labor's party platform at its national conference in August last year, the plan has now been put in the "too hard basket" with reports that its proponent, Special Minister of State Don Farrell, was unable to obtain bipartisan support.
That was to be expected given the LNP has adamantly opposed any increase in the number of senators, especially in the left-leaning ACT, on the grounds it would "diminish" the value of state Senate votes.
That, of course, is gobbledygook. How can redressing an obvious imbalance that devalues the polities of Canberra and the Northern Territory undermine the democratic process in any shape or form? It wouldn't. The reverse would be the case.
One can only assume that the LNP, which fears four more senators from the two territories would put more left wingers in the upper house, lacks the intellectual nous to realise that if the ACT had had four senators, not two, former senator Zed Seselja would still be in Parliament.
While it is likely that the fourth senator would be either another David Pocock-style independent or a Green, it would still be a significant win for the Coalition.
Putting that to one side for a moment, Labor has to explain why it is insisting on bipartisan support for a policy that is now a part of its platform thanks to representations by CFMEU national secretary Zach Smith and Northern Territory Attorney-General Chansey Paech almost a year ago.
Labor has a majority in the lower house and, on the face of it, should be able to stump up the numbers with the support of some independents and the Greens in the Senate.
Given it is understood that Senator Farrell is still planning to introduce an electoral reform bill to the Parliament next month what does Labor stand to gain by dropping a key reform that is long overdue?
His statement, last October, that "electoral reform works best where everybody is on the same page - and that's what I'm trying to get" just doesn't wash.
This change is a part of the ALP's federal platform. It has been ratified by the members at the national conference. Since when did the ALP need the acquiescence of the Coalition to press ahead with implementing elements of its own policy platform?
The ACT is badly short changed when it comes to Senate representation. The territory has two senators for 478,000 people. Contrast that with Tasmania which has 12 senators for a population of just over 541,000 people.
The ACT government stressed this disparity in its submission to the joint standing committee on electoral matters which has backed a significant increase in the size of both houses of Parliament to reflect the population growth of recent years.
READ MORE:
"Tasmania ... has 3.4 times the representation in the federal Parliament than that of the ACT despite having a population which is only 1.2 times larger than that of the ACT," the submission stated.
While, as the LNP is always quick to point out, NSW - the most populous state - has the same number of senators as Tasmania that is a non sequitur. NSW is much more strongly represented in the House of Representatives with 47 MPs compared to the ACT's three.
Senator David Pocock was correct when he said last year that "people who live in the ACT and NT [are] being dudded because we don't have people standing up for us here in Canberra".
This is a territory rights issue. The ALP has made a commitment and it should honour that pledge.
