The recent example of the effect on policy of a few malcontent Government backbenchers clearly shows that the Government is not assured of an easy time in the Senate. Throw in Senator Joyce, and anything could happen.

The best cure for the interference and meddling of the Senate by “unrepresentative swill” (one of the few things Paul Keating got right) is to abolish it

Leigh,

Perhaps you can enlighten us. I would agree that the thing Keating will be most remembered for was his memorable description of the Senate as "unrepresentative swill".

I have always wanted to know what his description of the House of Reps would have been? Possibly: "Representative swill"?

As far as abolishing the Senate is concerned, you can forget it, as it would require the approval of the people at a referendum. I can still remember the first time I voted, which was at a referendum to abolish the NSW Legslative Council (which was defeated). When one member of the public was asked what he thought of it, he said:

"I really don't know what to do. Should I vote 'NO', and show the mugs in the lower house how little I trust them, or vote 'YES' and seize the opportunity of getting rid of 40 politicians at a blow".

As far as the article is concerned I would suggest you refer to expert forecasts on other internet sites of how hard it would be for Labor to win a majority at the next half-senate election. It would be much easier for them to win in the House of Reps, and to have a hostile senate ready to refuse supply at a convenient time.

What a piece of self-serving bilge!

For the last nine years the Labor Party has been absolutely spineless in opposition. What is the value of digging up a few facts in Senate committees when their job was actually to use what leverage they had in the Senate to stop the Government from walking over the rights of minorities, castrating the unions, draining the universities of public funding, and demonising refugees?

The government may well use its majority tear the fabric of this country apart, but we can be sure that come 2007, there will be enough Senate-mandated lollies being cast around to make the Howard battlers feel good about voting the government back in.

There is no way the coalition is going to use the majority to make itself unelectable. In recent memory, only the Labor Party has been so stupid as to use its power in the Senate to show that it is completely undeserving of government.

Dear Mr. Evans,
I might consider voting for labor in 2007 but first I would seek answers to several questions and honesty in all.
Was the big black hole, used to justify a great reduction in social funding, a change in accounting procedure? If so, why has it not been challenged?
Why has the party not challenged the Iraq war, even as late as 2005, when the Sunday times (London) published the Rycroft memorandum? This showed the war resulted from collusion between the US and Britain, with appropriately distorted intelligence, the use of which the Australian government later used to excuse their behavior. The SAS was readied for war in mid 2002, perhaps merely preparedness for the coming onslaught by Saddam.
Why has the party indulged in slanging the Muslims terrorists? We are told they are all Muslim despite Mr. Pape’s recent book? This showed of the suicide bombers 1980-2005 over half was non-Muslim and the bulk, only wanted foreigners out of their territory.
Why collude in the Prime Ministers favorite wedging; produce fear and rule? The most recent is hyping fear of a terrorist attack subtending unnecessary laws added to those we already have.
Why let pass without dissent the recent Senatorial bullying of the Clerk, apparently doing his job?
Why when the party was so keen on the UN and International law has not more opposition been shown to the current government? Do the party also tell the UHNCR, UN and its resolutions to butt out?
Do we need to be dominated by the table of share value? May we have a little of living other than marveling at our riches, courtesy of the government of course?
These are juts a few of my questions not perhaps the most important. I have left out that important sporting table in which winning is all. We do win so many!
Also there is relaxed and comfortable but critical interest in Government if only the fulsome spin of information had some relation to truth rather than measure of spin.

Dear Mr Evans,

I agree the Senate has been a good moderator of many of the more radical bills that has come it, especially in the last six years. However many of the outcomes of Senate enquiries find their way to the waste paper basket. For example what about child overboard inquiry/SIEVX inquiry how has the government been made made properly accountable for their actions/inactions in these events. More importantly why did Australians involvement to invade Iraq go ahead despite mass demonstrations across the nation prior to the invasion. Why despite years of warnings about the poor treatment of asylum seekers in detention camps until something was done? Why has the malicious public slur by Senator Heffernan on High Court Judge Micheal Kirby
been left unaccountable?

Why Hefernen, why bollocking of Joyce and his view of a members responsibility, why override the state and sell uranium?
Because on all issues Howard plays wedge. Can the labor acknowledge homosexuality, bullying, improving Australia’s current account? Yet to deny any is to admit, at least it is so taken by our dumbded down or uninterested electorate, as approval. (Would argument as to correctness of an alternative position receive headlines?)
You would remember that Howard recently was indicating acceptance of state rights, at that time ignoring the preceding overriding of euthanasia in the Northern Territory. Revoked at commonwealth level on a private members bill, thus not Howard.
Any issue, which he wants to push, has not an argued position but one with national or moral base. At least so argued, and widely reported for most have emotional interest as well as intellectual, electoral views have weight, sometimes Arguments as to consequences are rarely touched.
The latest is the sextet. What an answer to Kyoto criticism, special treatment, ours is forgotten, a technological fix is in view. Australia will make money, the free loaders, that are those who have to catch up can now do so “fairly”. Our resources will be used not only to better the world but also to make money. Only problem, the spin failed to indicate that sequestering Carbon Dioxide is unproven, remember Synrock, and years can elapse before action need be taken. Action now to reduce car usage, make use of efficient technology or learn to live with less profligate custom is ignored. (Victoria has made real attempt along such lines.) Such would counter the needs of the new economy of buy and increase use or fall into decline.
I am puzzled by the slow use of the power, spin, given by burning of the Reichstag, the London bombing. Is the spin for worry too incomplete?