I may be a young whipper snapper Everald but I reckon the Senate can and does serve a purpose, and Senators do bring their State/Territory perspectives with them and blend these influences with the ever present "party line" most are subject to.

The Double Dissolution power is there for a reason, the wise ones who drafted the compromise that is our Constitution knew a thing or two about solving real dead locks and I for one think the 2 house system is serving us well, despite the annoyance created by the occasional election of crazies.

That's life in a vibrant democracy.

I must really misunderstand the way the senate works. Apparently one senator can outvote the majority of senators if they are not part of a major party.

I'd always been under the impression that if the majority of senators voted the same way then that's how the vote went. Apparently not if attacks on the senate are to believed.

Perhaps someone can explain how that voting system works.

What I'd thought was that the minors sometimes get to a balance of power position, if they vote with one of the majors on something where the majors don't agree then that side wins. If the majors agree and the minor parties senators don't then the minor vote does not do so well. That seems quite democratic, not perfect but still democratic.

R0bert

OLO posts can be ranked by how far into the post it start's to become clear the author hasn't thought through their argument. this one fails within three lines.

"I reckon that few people will disagree with him."

Anybody who doesn't vote Liberal or Labour would. Most people how don't live in NVQ would.

It's seems to me that many liberal voters can not get over the fact the Phony Tony couldn't get the indipendants signed onto his team.

I'm with you, Kenny.

>>...it start's to become clear the author hasn't thought through their argument.<<

I've heard better-reasoned arguments from the big bloke next to me in the pub, who won't let me go until he's sprayed his views over me at least half a dozen times.

It casually dismisses the concept of "checks and balances".

"We do not need an Upper House to provide a check and balance on the Lower House."

The only justification - gawd 'elp us - appears to be... the power of the press!

"...the media is now the most powerful opposition in the land, potentially more powerful than any Upper House."

The poverty of thought that went into that little gem is simply staggering. The role of the Upper House, a function that exists in many countries, is a valid subject of discussion. But to relegate it to having the same relevance to our governance as the Sun Herald cannot pass unchallenged.

The comparison with business is not particularly sound, either.

"It is as ridiculous as it would be if the shareholders of BHP elected two Boards of Directors and gave the second Board power to stop the first Board from doing anything."

German companies, which have been pretty successful overall in the past fifty years or so, operate with two Boards, the Vorstand and the Aufsichtsrat. The first is the Management Board, voted in by the shareholders. The second is the Supervisory Board, which contains directors elected by the employees.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqJlBLaw/2007/10.html

It works pretty well.

The Senate and State Upper Houses are anathema, QLD led they way here. They obfuscates if they don't have a majority and simply vote along party lines if they do. People complain about Government being slow, unwieldy, cumbersome and expensive 1/2 the problem is the Senate. Time to step up and do something about it if you feel that way, rather then just complain. The people are the ultimate house of review, there is no need for the huge expense of an upper house

I don't agree with the analysis about the controlling interests of minorities being an issue, the same thing is occurring in the house of Reps at the moment and would you advocate the removal of the House of Reps ?

A better idea is to abolish the parliament, and have the senators elected per electorate instead (the way parliamentarians are now)- and to make the ministers each directly elected across a single national pool of candidates applying for each ministry job.
Alternatively, we allow the entire nation to vote for senators in ANY state, and the most popular 50,70,100 etc candidates are put to the job.

That would clear a lot of rot and skewed representation on many levels;
1- the senators reflect local constituents (and as a house of accountability, that makes more sense than ministers who each only answer to a thousand people.
2- the ministers would actually be the people the voters want for the job in particular, rather than put there at random or by backroom negotiations
3- saves money- parliament is useless.
4- might attract slightly more relevant and qualified members to each profession

Add to that is the ability of the public to initiate referendums, and the representation issue becomes moot.

As for Paul Keating- he'd definitely know all about representation- why, he even conspired to overturn Hilali's deportation to win more support from religious extremists in his own electorate!

The checks and balances in our system are there to protect us from dictatorial government and are particularly needed now that the executive no longer answers to the elected Lower House MPs but tells them what to do. The Senate is more representative of the way people vote than is the House of Representatives. That is because the Senate is elected by PR. In fact, no governing party has had a majority of votes in its own right in the last 50 years. The same applies to state Upper Houses. No one senator can pass or defeat any bill. A majority of senators is required to pass one.

The fact that some senators got very small initial votes is irrelevant as no senator can be elected until he or she reaches a quota of 14.3 per cent of the vote. It does not matter if that senator is Steve Fielding with initial 2519 votes, Stephen Conroy with 780, Julian McGauran with 1190 or Judith Troeth with 829.

Chris C,
The problem of the senate remains while voters are encouraged to just place "1" above the line; as those that vote below the line allow unrepresented persons to get in. Recently in NSW I worked for an excellent Candidate for the upper house who received 30,000 plus votes yet because his supporters just placed "1" above the line, those with far fewer votes from people voting for other parties voted below the line therefore less capable persons were elected on second etc preferences.

What we need is fewer parties and compulsory completion of all boxes. The senate represents the political state of the nation, the house of Reps represents a local area. The House of reps better represents a large geographal area like country areas. The Senate is more influenced by large populated areas.

Philo you've got that exactly back to front.

I should be able to vote as I want to. I should be able to exhaust my below the line vote after 3 or 30 crosses, as I choose. I should not have to vote for 10, if I can not find 10 worth voting for. There should be no compulsion to vote for someone I definitely don't want in parliament, any where on the ballot.

King I can see your idea, but I doubt it could work. To start with even as an interested voter, I find it very hard to gain enough information to chose the best candidate in a local council election. I very much doubt I could find it to chose a treasurer.

Secondly, the 50% or more who aren't interested would be unlikely to chose wisely, they can't even do that with a whole government.

I always smile when Keating's "unrepresentative swill" comment is quoted. What I have never been able to find out, is what his term for the House of Representatives would be. Would they be the "representative swill"?

Folks, you all can relax, as a momentary reading of the Federal Constitution will show, you would not just need the referendum abolishing the Senate to be approved by four States, you would need them all! This just won't happen.

How could I want to abolish the Senate, when I remember the wonderful day when they deferred Whitlam's budget, and the Governor-General became displeased? I am a great enthusiast for States Rights, with different laws in each State, and people racing for the Queensland border, followed by the NSW police, who would have no jurisdiction over the border. When laws differ between states, there can be no extradition.

The author should note how many times people vote for one party in the House, and another in the Senate. This is because many feel that basically, the Government (of whichever party it may be composed) is the enemy of the people, and any way of making their life more difficult is to be encouraged.

It might be more beneficial if the author could devote himself to more pressing issues, such as how we can cut politicians salary and allowances.

Hasbeen,
Until you have exhausted your vote others do who support the swill, that is how unrepresantive swill get in above your preferences.

Hasbeen- good point;
But there are many potential answers that actually connected to the voting above/below the line- such as;
-voting on a party basis for the candidates above the line (eg, I could simply assume candidates of a party will follow party policy, and lean towards putting Labor in an industrial ministry, greens in environment etc- it has the distinct benefit that parties only get into the specific jobs that they are popular in, without getting a say in others (except when their ministry has authority).
-That and of course we could simply make it optional to vote for each minister.

What you have also highlighted is that we have absolutely no system of browsing policies of candidates except a google search assuming the candidate has a website with their policies spelled out. With or without any other changes to the system, I think there should still be installed a 'candidate and party database'- every applicant that manages to get accepted as a candidate for election must create a page on the government voting website (which includes searches for keywords, and charts to compare policies to).

If we cannot get rid of the senate then at least the elections for the House of Reps and the Senate should co-inside so can rid ourselves of things like this CO2 tax.

Philo,

Voters do not have to place “1” above the line. They freely choose to do so. They have the constitutional right to vote below the line (“constitutional right” because the Constitution says that parliament must be “directly” chosen). If they choose not to do so, they explicitly endorse their chosen party’s preference flow, a decision their party has made to its own advantage and therefore presumably to the advantage of that party’s supporters. I know they complain later, but whose fault is that?

Above the line voting was brought in to reduce the number of informal votes. The compulsory marking of preferences (whether manually or by the endorsement of your party’s choice) prevents votes exhausting. It is everyone’s democratic duty to vote and it is everyone’s democratic duty to make a choice all the way to the bottom of the list, however distasteful the choice between the Socialist Equity Party and the Citizens Electoral Council is.

Chris Curtis

Chris C,
I see your point. The faithful to major parties just vote above the line whild those voting for minor parties vote below exaust their votes below the line to minor parties before placing a major party up their list. Hense minir parties with the highest preferences are elacted.

Everald Compton is banging a very tinny populist drum here. It's true that the people can vote out a government. But it's also true that government in a complex and pluralist society should not effectively be a dictatorship between elections. On that score alone it is valuable to have a house of review.

Australia is a federation. There may well be too many senators. But that is a requirement of the arrangements in the Constitution, which would require amendment.

The constitutional position is that the six states are sovereign entities confederated by agreement. Centralising power in Canberra de jure as well as de facto by changing that arrangement might be an option Australians would choose, though I doubt it is a likely prospect in the foreseeable future.

The senate is unrepresentative, but a house of review is a good idea. Democracy is not a corporation. Parliament is not a commercial organisation.

Indeed the problem is that neither the senate nor the lower house represent the common good, but have both been largely (not completely) captured by narrow big money interests.

People, attitude is everything.

i enjoy the fact that voting below the line gives me an opportunity to number the candidate or party i disaprove of the most, last, second last etc.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12527#216472

Philo, i hear what you are saying about preferences but what i said above makes a big difference. Take Pauline Hanson as an example. The "real" problem was that she & her campaign manager had not stitched up good preference deals with other minor parties & independents before the election. if she had she would be in the NSW upper house now.

Most minor parties & independents make that mistake, if they all preferenced each other ahead of the major mistake parties they would be more successful.

Personally i think the "problem" should be tackled the other way around. Abolish the lower house power to legislate, make them administrators, or public servants only.

The truth is that the reps have an apalling record of terrible laws which are reviewed, moderated, ammended by the senate. EG, the GST was passed by the democrats in the senate after "essential" items like food were excluded. The government got its mandated laws passed with the worst elements taken out.

The Senate has never ever functioned as a House of Review, it has been nothing more than a place where negative political games are carried out by people who have been elected by their parties not by the people. In addition, it has never functioned as a States House and is therefore in breach of the Constitution under which it was established.It is a disgrace. Everald

EVERALD,
Please note all Candidates are appointed by the Party including your local representative. What do you mean, not elected by the people. Dont forget to fill in the huge Senate Ballot paper next time to choose your elected Senator.

Everald
Before you get rid of the senate I wish you would get rid of political donations (bribes) and then we may have a more representative government. In the USA they admit that the candidates that spends the most money on their elections usually wins, is this democracy?
You may also consider introducing secret ballots in the parliament so that members may vote against their own party when they feel the need.