2. How were they originally filled and how are they filled now? Is this system democratic or should it be changed? Lets find out…

4. Section 15 of the Constitution (before referendum) If the place of a Senator becomes vacant before the end of their term then the Parliament from the State that they were representing shall choose a person to hold their place However if the State Parliament is not sitting, then the Governor of that State can choose a replacement Senator until and up to 14 days that the State Parliament has been sitting At the next general election of the H.O.R or the Senate, whichever comes first, the appointment shall be certified by the Governor of the State and the Governor- General

5. There was a need for a referendum because in the Whitlam government there was a situation in which Queensland Premier Bjelke-Petersen refused to accept Labor nominee Mal Colston to fill the Senate vacancy in Parliament. It is due to these inter-party politics that the Australian people realised the need for a referendum in which a Senate vacancy must be filled by a person of the same political party as the vacated Senator.

6. In the 1977 Referendum, the parliamentary convention- in which a nominee must be from the original Senators political party was officially added into the wording of the Constitution therefore enforcing that replacements must be from the predecessor’s original political party In addition the previous wording of the Constitution said that House s of Parliament had to appoint a replacement Senator, however seeing as Queensland is a unicameral system the wording was changed. Also the newly appointed Senator is now able to sit the entire term of their predecessor and do not need to face the public at any election before their term is over SO……………… Does that solve the problem?!

7. Senate vacancies must now be filled by a member who is affiliated with the political party whom the previous Senator belonged to Queensland doesn’t have a constitutional problem of only having a unicameral system. (they have other problems, but not for now )

8. What is compelling the State’s to appoint a new Senator? Is there a time frame in which this action must be completed? Wouldn’t by-elections be more democratic, seeing as the people are not involved in this process at all? And is it possible for a Senator to sit a term without ONCE facing the public at general election? Can there be manipulation of seats in the Senate?

9. If the Parliament does not appoint a Senator within 14 sitting days (as in there is a gap) then the Senator must be certified by the Governor-General. This happened in the case of Senator Vardon.

11. In 1987 Senator Don Grimes, who represented Tasmania, resigned thereby leaving his replacement in the hands of a joint sitting of the Tasmanian State Parliament. The Tasmanian Parliament, led by Premier Robin Gray, refused to accept the nomination of John Devereux and therefore kept the Federal Parliament in deadlock. Bob Hawke, the Prime Minister at the time announced that the Parliament was now “faced with an extraordinary situation- one replete with political as well as profound constitutional implications.” In a fiery speech delivered to the Federal Parliament one month after Senator Grimes resignation, PM Hawke discusses the reasoning behind Premier Grays refusal to accept the nomination of Mr. Devereux. In it he discusses the democratic principle which involves tolerance and acceptance of opposition. Premier Gray was refusing to accept Mr Devereux because he was of an opposing political party and Gray did not agree with his policies.

12. Once again Senate vacancies were being played to the advantage of the State Parliaments and were therefore undemocratic. Senator Grime’s position in the Senate was never filled as Premier Gray promised it would remain vacant. Therefore Tasmania was bereft of their constitutional entitlement of 12 Senators and were only represented by 4 ALP members when they had voted for 5. This is a flaw in both a democratic and constitutional principle. ---------- There is no time frame in which a Parliament must replace a vacant Senate seat yet the Senate made resolutions in which they asked the States to fill their vacancies expeditiously. This resolution is not legally binding and all the Senate can do is reprimand States if they fail to nominate a replacement speedily.

14. Due to the 1977 referendum it is now easier for State Parliaments to manufacture their own Senators. A Senator can be forced by their party to resign and therefore they end up leaving the constitutional power of replacing a Senator with the States. These States are consequently able to fill these positions my members that they themselves have chosen instead of Senators who the public have chosen. This was seen in clear cases of manipulation where Senators purposefully resign in order to fill their space with another member who would not be elected by the people. This happened in the case of Senator Kay Denman who served in the Senate for 12 years but was only elected once in 1998. Senator Michael Tate decided to resign and become an Ambassador to the Netherlands after 5 days of sitting and Senator Denman resumed his position.

16. Furthermore it is possible for a Senator to sit an entire term without ever once facing the public for a general election. This happened in the case of Senator Santo Santoro who was appointed to fill a Queensland Senate vacancy- he was then granted a Ministerial position as Minister of Aged Care and after a dispute about the way he was handling finances, resigned from his seat. Senator Santoro never faced an election yet held a seat in the Senate and was a Minister. Other cases of these are Senator Belinda Neal and SA Senator John Olsen who never went to the polls to have their appointment confirmed by the public. Is this democratic? Shouldn’t there be a by election to see who the people want so that the Senator is representing the people of the State, not just the government of the State

17. This challenges democracy because the Senate is supposed to be an elected States house and a House of Review The Senate is not effectively a State’s house because they are able to be appointed by the State Parliaments. In fact currently 24 out of the 76 members in the Senate first assumed their position through a casual Senate vacancy. Although a lot of the Senators go on to be elected by the public at later elections that is not the case in many situations. Therefore the Constitution which is supposed to protect us from this failure in democracy is actually responsible for this deep flaw. Representative Government- an important structural protection which is consistently upheld throughout our Constitution is disregarded at the times of Senate vacancies. Tolerance of diverse political views and opposition- an important principle to democracy is undermined due to the egotistic and stubborn nature of many State Parliaments when they are given the duty to replace a Senator from an opposing political party.

18. The Senate should fill its vacancies through by-elections. Although they are lengthy, especially because it will have to be done by the State as a whole, it is necessary in safeguarding and upholding the Constitutional right of direct and equal representation of states. The Constitution has failed in providing us with a protection against this and therefore it must be amended via referendum.

19. http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume17/v17chap4.html http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/odger s/chap0421 http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2012/03/bob-carr-and-how-senate-vacancies-are- filled.html http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chambe r%2Fhansardr%2F1987-05-12%2F0055%22