Then, last Tuesday, Fiona Nash announced she would contest the National Party preselection for that same seat. The preselection will take place on Tuesday, June 8, and candidates must have nominated by Friday, May 21.

It is none of my business to tell the Nationals what to do - but, undaunted, that is exactly what I am now going to do.

Who would the selected candidate succeed in the seat if he or she were to fill it? The answer is arguably Fiona Nash, who held the seat from July 1, 2005. She was elected to six-year terms in October 2004 and August 2010. Had there not been a double dissolution in 2016 she would undoubtedly have been elected again to a six-year term.

However, there was a double dissolution. Consequently, Nash was re-elected to the Senate in July 2016 and then "given" a six-year term expiring in 2022 by a resolution of the Senate.

Here some explaining is needed. Under section 13 of the constitution, the Senate's first business following a double dissolution is to decide which six of the 12 senators for a state should get six-year terms. The remainder get three years.

The 2016 NSW Coalition list went this way: 1. Marise Payne (Liberal), 2. Arthur Sinodinos (Liberal), 3. Fiona Nash (Nationals), 4. Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (Liberal), 5. John Williams (Nationals), 6. Hollie Hughes (Liberal) and 7. Jim Molan (Liberal).

The first five on the ticket got the nod from the voters. Then, in late August, the Senate's resolution gave Payne, Sinodinos and Nash six-year terms, and Fierravanti-Wells and Williams three-year terms.

The Nationals have, since Nash became a senator in 2005, always been able to elect two NSW senators, the second in this case being John ("Wacka") Williams. He was elected in November 2007 to a six-year term and then re-elected in 2013 and 2016.

The NSW Coalition agreement has been that Williams be given the third spot in May 2019 and that the successor to Nash be given the second spot in May 2022.

Meanwhile, Williams retired, and his place was taken by Perin Davey (Nationals) who was the NSW fifth elected out of six in May 2019. She took her seat on July 1, 2019.

Unluckily for them, things went wrong for the NSW Nationals on October 27, 2017, when the High Court disqualified Nash because she owed allegiance to a foreign power. While Nash herself was Australian-born, her father was English-born - so she inherited British citizenship. The mad reasoning of the High Court, therefore, disqualified her. I have been criticising that reasoning ever since.

Explaining what has happened to her term is complicated but, essentially, her seat has been held by Jim Molan, then Arthur Sinodinos, then Molan again. So a Liberal man has been sitting in a seat to which a Nationals woman was elected.

Now that this very, very safe Nationals seat will revert to the Nationals, they must decide to whom it should be given under our party-machine appointments system that passes for the Senate method of voting.

READ MORE:

My first argument is that, in both Coalition parties, there should be a rule that a seat held by a woman should not be handed to a man. My reasoning is that both parties have a serious problem with women.

At present, the Nationals have 21 seats in the Federal Parliament - five in the Senate, and 16 in the House of Representatives. Of the 21 politicians, only six are women.

Nationals friends of mine who support Anderson's bid argue that the Senate Nationals contingent is excessively female. It is true that presently there are four women - Bridget McKenzie, Perin Davey, Samantha McMahon and Susan McDonald - and only one man, Matt Canavan. My counterargument is that there are only two female Nationals in the House of Representatives - Anne Webster (Mallee, Victoria) and Michelle Landry (Capricornia, Queensland).

The essential point, however, is to consider what backbenchers do these days. Unlike the good old days, they don't make persuasive speeches. They serve on committees. For that reason, the new senator should be a woman with a future. Nash is such a woman. At the time she found her seat confiscated from her by High Court judges, she was the Minister for Regional Development in the Turnbull government. She was also the Minister for Local Government and Territories.

John Anderson has his supporters, who argue that he is a very decent man and a good conservative philosopher.

Both claims are true, but my question is this: Do the Nationals need a good conservative philosopher?

What the Nationals need is someone with a future, not a past.