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!