The senate is needed because the lower house is undemocratic, where ordinary people are not represented and where there is in practice only one party masquerading as two.

Have either proportional or direct representation, then the senate can be done away with.

Tax reform as it'ss being presented has every chance to fail, because it rewards big banks and patently crooked financial houses for clearly, corrupt behaviour.

The Senate is buggered, when someone who received just 19 votes is the alleged representative, then stands and gives a final solution, mine kamf speech, and other go for out and out misogyny just for the publicity it gets them an in the public eye!?

Before he gave his final solution speech, who had heard of the former one nation member? Now every boy and his dog knows whatsisname?

We need a system that better reflects the elector first choice rather than that via dirty deals done in the dead of night as preference swaps that self evidently confounds the blue blaze out of it!

For mine, that means preferencing has to be optional. And we the voter should decide who is first on the ticket not the boys in the room at the back!

Finally, we do need real tax reform to restore equity and fairness along with massive economic upside! And that reform would be an unavoidable 15% flat tax everybody above a generous threshold pays. And given the actual tax actually paid as actual revenue, was 13% in 2017!

And where one in four paid none? Numbered among those were those with the biggest profits, therefore, revenue should increase.

Further, and taking the 13% max as the example, and including tax-related compliance costs averaging 7%, means altogether a 20% impost on the bottom line currently.

However, a 15% unavoidable flat tax with no deductions available, would still be 5% less as the total sum of tax liability and related compliance costs, the latter being made completely redundant by the inherent simplicity! It's just too easy!
Alan B.

Explanation: The 13% tax reference should be read as the maximum tax paid in actual money/revenue and after all deductions available, was as stated, 13% tops, 2017! (4 Corners)
Alan B.

>>Have either proportional or direct representation, then the senate can be done away with. - Yuyutsu

Either proportional or direct representation assumes multi-member electorates.

Proportional representation means candidates are elected in proportion to the number of votes cast for them. That system does not guarantee the election of the most competent candidates, merely, perhaps, those with the biggest electoral machine and most money to spend on the campaign. Worse if preferential voting allows one very popular candidate to drag other candidates through.

On the other hand, practical politicians know they must ignore the wishes of many voters because they are, for example, ill-informed, illogical, contradictory, some times malicious and some times potentially criminal.

Direct representation, according to Wikipedia, "is a proposed form of representative democracy where each representative's vote is weighted in proportion to the number of citizens who have chosen that candidate to represent them."

That system means that every electorate must have multiple candidates elected to represent not only "reasonable persons", but the spread of interests of voters who hold ignorant, ill-informed, racist, prejudiced opinions or with single issue fixations.

Also, if the vote is split often enough, candidates with only a few votes could be elected: think Fraser Anning, elected to the Senate with 19 primary votes.

The costs of government (salaries and superannuation for politicians and staff, parliamentary and electorate office accommodation and operating expenses, travel and accommodation, leave entitlements, etc., would have to rise.

Yujutsu assumes every vote (and every voter's opinion) is equally valid and thus that every candidate is equally valid, so it doesn't matter who is elected so long as it's proportional.

Not so. An opinion that is not supported by facts, information, logic, rational argument, experience and knowledge is not valid. Opinions informed by propaganda, malice or racism, for example, are not valid.

Proportional voting has delivered legislative blocking by the cross bench in recent years, sometimes good, sometimes not.

Not sure how either proportional or direct government is an improvement. But go ahead, Yuyutsu, tell us.

Calwest said- "An opinion that is not supported by facts, information, logic, rational argument, experience and knowledge is not valid. Opinions informed by propaganda, malice or racism, for example, are not valid."

Answer- My understanding is democracy is a form of government where the "electorate determines what is valid". The other form of government where validity is determined by the few is called "dictatorship" or "oligarchy" malign or beneign. Good luck with your dictatorship Calwest- through the chair.

I am now firmly convinced that the only way for we neglected and scorned voters to make the senate work is to vote only for independents. Certainly, never vote for a senator who is a member of a party that could end up in government.