Greens policy will lead to more old people not being able to afford heating bills in the winter and cooling bills in the summer. A carbon tax will also result in an increase in food and other essentials. The money collected from these increased taxes will help fund future farces like CopenHagen where the big polluters like China and India must laugh at the stupidity of those who think that taxing people in such a small nation will change global temperatures.

Runner: the problems you foresee re: a price on carbon can be rectified by redirecting funds gained to those vulernable, including those on pensions such as the Aged Pension. This can occur through direct increases in pensions, or through subsidies. Those on low incomes could also be compensated through tax restructure.

It is the suggestion that the Greens could "have" the balance of power that fazes me a little, as it always did with the Democrats. The major parties will have at least 140 seats in the House and at least 60 seats in the Senate. What power woud the Greens possibly have, or did the Democrats ever have EXCEPT when the major parties (or one of them in particular cases) choose not to negotiate to achieve good legislation. It is surely only then, when the major parties actively choose to hand power to Greens that the Greens would have any to excercise.

Even if you allowed that Greens were a little bit too far to the left, that should simply give our two centrist party groupings more reason to negotiate on legislation instead of giving up and telling the Greens to decide because it is just all too hard for the majors.

Poll Clerk, you took the words out of my mouth.

In fact I was just going to suggest that Labor and Liberal should go into coalition against the Greens.

Poll Clerk, Jon J,
Your naivety stuns me clearly you either don't understand the PREFERENCE system of voting that define the senate or you are trying to change the subject.

The Dems now the Greens got there BECAUSE the PROPORTIONAL number of citizens want(ed) a balance, a brake on polarised power by either the Liberals or Labor. If you like a serious nod to policy over dogma and painted personality politics.

In simple terms a significant portion of the people didn't trust either side implicitly. The one time in 30 years a party had absolute power we got Howard's self aggrandising wet dream

Yes Examinator. We understand that 10-15% of the voters might choose a third party. And that makes a Senate that can use its teeth occasionally to run hard-hitting inquiries. But it only makes for power if the other 85-90% of Senators choose to hand a decision over to that 10-15%. Co-operation between the majors just leaves the third party out in the cold. A voice to be heard sure, but power no. I still think it is the choice of the majors to co-operate on legislation or hand the decision to the third party. The third party only gets a say after the majors make their choice to oppose each other and not compromise.