I have been asked a number of times what one portfolio I would prefer if I had a choice. Here's my answer:
One is too hard! And very theoretical because it all depends on the suite of skills and expertise available in the party room. And unnecessarily restrictive because even with 13 or even 14 Senators and MHR's we would each be likely to have more than one portfolio.
For example I'd be very happy with having an economics portfolio because I think we ought be to framing our policy issues in economic terms to overcome the view in the community that we don't understand economics. But I think Bob is unlikely to give it up, and Adam is doing an excellent job with finance.
Similarly I would be absolutely passionate about having energy and climate change but I think Christine is likely to want to keep them!
That leaves three areas which I think are the best fit between my skills, passion and background and where we have specialty gaps- these are transport and sustainable cities and regions; science, (only one other of our current team of Senators (Lee Rhiannon) has a science degree, and democracy and community engagement. If I had to choose one I'd go for the first because I think it has the potential to be a very significant federal issue for us, just as it is at state and local level.
But, I'd be just as happy with and am passionate and have credibiility about portfolios as diverse as Indigenous Australiians, disability, education; international human rights issues, forests and environment