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?

Plerdsus,

Dumping the Senate is merely my personal wishful thinking: a hope unlikely to be shared by the majority who believe in the checks and balances functions of an upper house. They believe this despite the bleeding obvious – except for the independents, all Senators vote along party lines. Or else! Barnaby Joyce slipped under the net. But he has had his day (and probably his first and only go at politics) and will soon be re-educated by his colleagues. Already, he looks as though he has been in the bear pit all his life!

So, I agree with your comments on the near impossibility of the Senate ever being abolished. Politicians will never relinquish power to the people. Witness the mouth frothing in SA at the recent suggestion of introducing citizen initiate referenda. Even the lady Democrat leader turned aggressive (against it), conveniently overlooking the fact that CIR used to be Democrat policy. Once politicians get in, they don’t want to leave.

The Government attempt to put a uranium dump in SA is a prime example of the uselessness of the Senate to voters. South Australians clearly did not want the dump. The Government did not want the dump. I wrote to the SA Senators to find out what they intended to do about it. Of the two only who had the common decency and courtesy to respond, both quoted the party line and ignored the wishes of their own state.

Senator Joyce gave the idea that for a momment the Senate might look something like a State's House; Senator Joyce appears to have capitulated; and so, the possibility has gone. The Senate might as well go into recess until the next half Senate election. The alternative is Howard Government members are innoculted with a huge dose of consideration for electors other than the big end of town.

The latest issue off the blocks is single mothers being pushed into the workforce, and then being taxed to the hilt. The Coalition Government rails against academics; however, the Howard Government makes decisions without having a scrap of notion about how abusive their policies are to segments of the community. They really amount to administrative thugs.

Actually all this shows is how Labour has relied on the minor parties reflex opposition rather than sensible policies or rational argument for last 9 years. The article is nothing but partisan political ALP spin.

The Children Overboard lies are fiction of a committee with an agenda of making purely partisan attacks on the government unsupported by any evidence. The only facts about the Children Overboard stuff up are in the dissenting minority report.

The GST on food would have the tax much simpler and cheaper to administer and would have caused no long term fall out what so ever. The tax and welfare changes could have easily compensated for and cost of living increases that resulted. The fact that you can tax land, production, labour, shops and raise the admin costs of trading food but not actually tax the food itself is the sort of stupid logic of the sort of Senate Evans praises. And it is another FUD myths the ALP thinks will win them power.

David Watford

Dear Chris,

Though not a Labor voter, I fully agree with your concerns about the present plight of our state-owned Federal Senate, virtually captured by a Prime Minister, who has sadly changed from a person of decency and humility to one of vainglory. Taking an observation of Western history and philosophy from the the early Greek period, we could say that Howard has ceased to be his own man. Whether he has been reading Machiavelli, Howard, rather than the cold-eyed look of Machiavelli, has adopted the appearance more of the 19th century colonial British statesman, stiff-upper-lip and steady gaze. A look possibly more dangerous than of Machiavelli, a dumbed-down public believing that surely such a leader looking like that, is out to do good. But if our leader has taken on a 19th century personality, our public might need a few lessons in colonialism. Trading in slaves, shifting tribal borders to necessitate the practice of divide and rule, as well as the necessity to publicly hang tribal leaders in hundreds, as was done in India before Gandhi won that part of history. Looking at Howard, historically, then, we might suggest that there is a danger he might be bringing the worst out in his voting public.

Yet we must agree, Chris, that Labor followers, similar to Liberal voters, have become somewhat dumbed down by the threat of terrorism also. Terms like “scum” for all terrorists, as Mr Beazley has come out with recently, has surely added to future votes for Howard. Sometimes we could wonder that Australian Labor, similar to the US Democrats, have become jingoistically muted as the Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul has intimated. It has got that way with foolish utterances like Beazley’s, coupled with both Beazley and Kerry saying before their nation’s elections, that now the mess has begun in Iraq many more troops should be sent in to finish the job. Certainly such rhetoric could be playing right into George W’s hands.
George C, WA - Bushbred

The Labor has no power in the Senate and aren't they squealing about it. Chris Evans' latest whinge is basically a complaint about the proper functioning of democracy where Australia has rejected the Labor party.

Hasn't the Labor party risen above scare mongering? They still treat the electorate as fear motivated. They are actually motivated by logic which is why they are not in power.

Trying to pit boss against worker while pretending to be the protector of unsuspecting public is insincere and self-serving, as is your portrayal of Howard as ideologially driven. The Left is the most ideologically driven force in Autralia today.

The unions are dead, the Labor Party is almost dead. A new oppostition is needed, but there is no alternative to a good government other than a better government. And thats what the Labor party can never be.

The issue is not just if Chris Evans is right but if he is right then why on earth did he do nothing about it, and so his party?

Last I know was that on 18 March 2003 I lodged in the High Court of Australia for a mandamus/prohibition for Australian troops to go into war unconstitutionally, as no Declaration of War was proclaimed by the Governor-General. On 19 March 2003, the very day the war commenced, the high court of Australia refused to accept the application for hearing upon its MERITS.
Labor didn’t care less about this abuse of legal power!

After 2 attempts in the Federal Court and 5 in the High court of Australia, all railroaded, finally now I have an order for the matter to be litigated, including the validity of the 2001 and 2004 purported federal elections.

I pursue that John Howard and his cronies within Section 24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth) committed criminal acts by the invasion.

Likewise so, I am exposing the rot about Industrial relations, for so far being unconstitutional and a whole lot more.
Not one did Chris Evans or for that matter any member of his political party bother to check back with me about issues. Seems that they can complain and complain but really are not at all interested to try to resolve the problems, as after all, if they can get in power they would likely likewise abuse their powers, as they did before.
Get rid of the unions in the Parliament and have only INDEPENDENTS in the Parliament. After all, isn’t Howard & Co against unionism in that regard?

See also my 30 September 2003 published book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

Lets get real representation by kicking out of parliament all those belonging to a party, so only people representing their electorate and not party interest will vote on legislation!

The last post is interesting butI think will be pilloried on the one hand by those whose interst it is not to be disturbed and on the other those who think the issue real but more complex than is implied. As someone said Power corrupts but failed also to note that the human mind seeks leaders to follow and any critical assessment is left to Academia, cited by few. Not I hasten to add that academia is neccesarily correct merely that their brief is to be informed and even handed along ethical lines, Whose ethics when Hitler's became well accepted?
Individual members yes but the practicality of their election, funding etc would need thinking about. Again power corrupts so re-election might distort any ethical prediliction. Fixed terms, maybe, a pragamtic acceptance of what the facts imply? Maybe.
But the politicians would need to inform the electorate of, for example the collusion and mileading made clear by Rycroft's letter, Sunday Times (london) May 1 2005, record of U K cabinet May 23 2002.
But the policians were not interested were not told did not hear or were elswhere at the time. Correct that by individaul members? I doubt it. The issue to seek American security was paramount justifying foresaking of the electors.