Funny that, I thought. Two nights earlier I had been on Sky Business News television saying to interviewer Peter Switzer quite dogmatically: "Pauline Hanson's One Nation party has been resurrected by the collaboration of Malcolm Turnbull, Nick Xenophon and The Greens in their new Senate electoral system. Hanson herself has been ELECTED to a six-year term."

So, was Hanson ELECTED to a six-year term or was she to be given it by grace and favour of the generosity of the Labor and Liberal parties in their deal?

Later that Friday evening I watched The Drum program on ABC News 24. Panel members were mainly talking about indigenous affairs, but eventually came to this subject. The two politicians from the Liberal Party (Mathias Cormann and Ken Wyatt) spouted their well-rehearsed party line. The others indicated to the audience that they did not have a clue what this was all about.

Labor's Senator Penny Wong was later quoted as fully supporting the Liberal spin, saying that the Liberal Party's proposal "reflects the will of the voters". To that I say: "bunkum".

Let me explain. We have recently voted in Australia's eighth Senate general election. The previous seven took place in March 1901, September 1914, April 1951, May 1974, December 1975, March 1983 and July 1987.

Back in the 19th century a collection of statesmen (note that: they were all men) drafted Australia's Constitution. They believed in the concept of what was then called the "gentlemen's agreement". They assumed such would always prevail. Little did they know about the politics of 1987 or 2016!

Consequently, section 13 reads: "As soon as may be after the Senate first meets, and after each first meeting following a dissolution thereof, the Senate shall divide the senators chosen for each State into two classes, as nearly equal in number as practicable ..."

So the Senate itself decides who gets six years and who gets three.

The Senate general elections of 1901 and 1914 were conducted under an electoral system psephologists call "multi-seat plurality". Each elector had one vote, which was actually six votes - and they were counted. The top six scoring men were elected; then the top three scorers for each State were given six-year terms by the Senate itself under a commonsense gentlemen's agreement.

In 1948, the method of counting votes was changed to the present single transferable vote system. Several things were not noticed about the change at the time - and this was one of them.

After the 1951 election, I noticed that the nominal order of election was clearly an unfair way to distribute the long and short terms in Tasmania. However, I was only a school boy at the time so I did nothing about it.

The Senate general elections of 1974, 1975 and 1983 passed by without anyone suggesting that the nominal order of election method had resulted in any unfairness.

However, due to the then unsatisfactory nature of the entire federal electoral system, the Hawke government, elected in March 1983, decided to set up an all-party joint select committee on electoral reform. That committee later became the present Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

An Adelaide mathematician by the name of Alastair Fischer (among whose distinctions is the fact of being the father of actress Kate Fischer of Sirens fame) proposed a new section of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That is now section 282, which requires an additional count of any Senate general election votes as a guide to the future.

The Australian Electoral Commission is currently doing the section 282 counts for the July 2 elections in the States. No need in the ACT because our senators do not rotate. These counts convert the full-Senate votes into a half-Senate election count.

Section 282 was inserted in 1984 to the universal approval of all the psephologists of the day and ever since. On every score, if the present politicians were to implement section 282 early next month, they would enjoy universal third-party validation for their decision.

It happened that the first possible use of section 282 would have given the Coalition two extra senators with six-year terms. Consequently the Coalition wanted its use in 1987. However, Labor and the Democrats voted together to give those two seats to the Democrats, justifying that decision by asserting that the nominal order was fairer - pure nonsense, of course, but they had the numbers.

At the time the senator who most disappointed me was independent Tasmanian Brian Harradine. He should have known better and voted with the Coalition. However, when I accosted him and berated him he explained that he would always favour minor parties at the expense of bigger parties - hence his sympathy with the Democrats.

This time it is the other way round from 1987. The smaller parties would benefit from the fairness of section 282. Lee Rhiannon, of the Greens, and Justice Party's Derryn Hinch would get the long terms if section 282 were implemented. So the two big parties want to cheat both Rhiannon and Hinch out of the six-year terms to which they were elected on July 2. The stolen goods are to be given one seat each to Labor and Liberal.

My guess is that this blatant act of collusion between the two biggest parties will fall apart. My advice to Hinch (if the Liberals are obstinate) is to refuse his vote to the Coalition on every occasion except when the Turnbull government proposes something dear to his heart.

That would surely bring the Coalition to heel. If the Coalition refuses to do the right thing of their own accord, they can surely be persuaded by Hinch exercising his important one vote to bluff them into doing the right thing. Would Turnbull and Cormann really try to call his bluff?

Malcolm Mackerras is a visiting fellow at the Australian Catholic University's Canberra campus. malcolm.mackerras@acu.edu.au