The 1906 referendum changed the terms to begin on 1 July and end on 30 June, primarily to enable simultaneous elections to be held in March.
The changes made to section 13 in 1906 are: In relation to the commencement of terms, there is a subtle difference between a half senate election and a double dissolution.
Most members of the Australian Senate ordinarily serve fixed six-year terms, with half-senate elections every three years.
The Senate is constrained from acting in this way by concerns about the potential political controversy, rather than any provision in the Constitution to prevent such an outcome.
The electoral system used in the senate can affect the allocation of long and short terms after a double dissolution.
While the Government could have requested the Governor-General submit the proposal to a referendum under section 128 of the Constitution,[12] it did not do so and the bill lapsed at the 1951 double dissolution.
The same method has been used to allocate long (six-year) and short (three-year) terms on every occasion, though the voting system has changed during that time.
Section 282 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was introduced as an amendment in 1984 with the effect of providing access to another method of allocating short and long terms.
In both of the double dissolution elections that have taken place since that section was added, two parties have collaborated to allocate themselves two extra long term seats by choosing the more favourable method.
In 1983 the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform unanimously recommended an alternative "recount" method to reflect proportional representation.
Their recommendations included: Section 282 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was introduced as an amendment in 1984 with the effect of providing access to another method of allocating short and long terms.
However, the order of election of the twelve senators from each state, on which the traditional allocation method is based, is also made public as a result of transparency in the vote counting process.
[23] In both cases two parties worked together in the senate to allocate themselves two extra long term seats by choosing the more favourable method.
This was rejected by Labor and the Democrats, who ignored the unanimous recommendation for reform from the Joint Select Committee and the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and instead maintained the previous (order-elected) system to allocate the long (six-year) terms ending on 30 June 1993 and short (three-year) terms ending on 30 June 1990.
One of the reasons advanced for not using the alternative count in 1987 was that the method should only be adopted if the Senate passed a resolution before the double dissolution.
[5] To this end Labor Senator John Faulkner moved a motion in 1998 to use section 282 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in a future double dissolution.
[26] In 2010 by Liberal Senator Michael Ronaldson introduced the same motion, which passed again with the support of both major parties, and without debate.
[27][28] Despite the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the bipartisan senate resolutions passed in 1998[29] and 2010[20][28][30][27] in support of the recount method, following the July 2016 double dissolution election, an agreement between Liberal's Mathias Cormann and Labor's Penny Wong led the Senate to choose the order-elected method again.
[35] The recount method is generally described as fairer, on the basis that it better reflects preferential (instant runoff) voting[36] and proportional representation[24] through the allocation of long terms according to a method almost identical to that used in a normal half senate election, which combines preferential voting and proportional representation.
For a six-member electorate with preferential voting (e.g., a normal half senate election and the recount method), a candidate must secure a quota of 14.28% (
Thus, when there is a difference between the two outcomes, it reflects the fact that the order-elected method introduces some arbitrariness to the process, by not considering the preferences of up to 53.85% (
It may at first appear that the order-elected method favours the major parties through this greater reliance on first preference votes, however in the two double dissolution elections in which the special recount has been conducted, the order-elected method benefited the Democrats by two seats, Labor by one (net) and Liberal by one (net) seat.
The full quotas of first preference votes in support of the major parties are often exhausted by the time the sixth candidate is elected, so that the first preference votes given to a major party, to the extent they are distributed as a block, will fall anywhere between zero and one full quota in remaining value.
In 2016, Labor Senate Leader Penny Wong described the order-elected method as consistent with convention and reflecting the will of voters.
[32] Liberal deputy Leader in the senate, Mathias Cormann described the order-elected method as the fairest and reflective of the will of the people.