Chris Evans, wasn't it Saint Paul who branded the senate as housing 'unrepresentative swill'? And wasn't it Saint Paul who, having so little respect for parliament, limited his appearances in the lower house?

Congratulations for serendipitously discovering democracy in parliament house. Don't be afraid, it won't bite you. See what happens when you venture out of the parliamentary dining room. Democracy was sadly missing when, with the shedding of a few tears, Bob Hawke granted about 25,000 Chinese students 'refugee' status without consultation or reference to his fellow Australians. And wasn't it the ALP that kicked out a Russian spy during the Hawke locust years? Was he a terrorist? Where was his right to a trial? Should we bring him back and pay him compensation for the ALP's lack of democracy.

The ALP won't abuse power you say. Wasn't it an ALP prime minister that retrospectively changed the law to prevent his treasurer from being charged with fraud? That's gold Mr Evans.

I do share your concerns about the senate only having ten days to scrutinise all legislation. If this timetable is not met it could interfere with the holiday season round of fact finding missions. Ahhh - Paris, Rome, Vienna, New York, London and perhaps check on the house on the La Costa d'Amalfi.

The ALP as a wellspring of all that is pure and chaste? My rheumy eyes tell me we are entering the era when we can expect to see the lamb lie down with the lion.

Chris Evans observations are correct.

I am replying to comment by 'GW'
.
"..1. Australia gave John Howard this majority. So you can't really complain if he uses it..."

I have to remind, that the Liberal Party is not voted in to power on its own majority - in a party-preferred 1st-past-the-post system, the Labor Party would easily win every election. Various other Parties give preference, or not, to the party of their choice.

"...2. Maybe, it is a good thing that ..much needed reforms can now take place without endless debates and bluster from the left. Is it not a good thing that we ..have a government that can get on with job?.."

The Left? I will remind that governments barely get in to power on more or less than 5 percentage points (this is a worldwide trend)- and it is this difference that is the hallmark of Democracy. ' Bluster' my ass.

"...3. By 2007 everyone will have forgotten the IR and terrosim debates and be getting on with whatever the issues of the day are. Hopefully these will not be suicide bombings in Australia or Australia's economy falling further behind the rest of the world. If so, we would have John Howard to thank for this..."

This is windy rhetoric.
I will remind that John Howard is simply not responsible for the security of this country - the Law Enforcement Agencies are. They work under whatever Government happens to be there, and have already the laws to carry through their agenda.
John Howard is also not ultimately responsible for the "Economy". There are larger forces at work here, too, that are constant strings of negotiations where Governments can only occassionally influence the International influence of "Economy".
Are we to turn the Australian workplace into an American system? IR reforms are a good idea - BUT NOT IN ITS PRESENT FORM, which is perhaps why having the so-called 'other 47.5%' have their influence via the senate was always the best system.

Perhaps the most effective tool for demonstrating the Caolitions current disregard for the remainder fo the senate is the continued refusal of Sen Avett to answer carefully worded questions with anything other than prepared speeches on entirely different topics, and the correspondent bluff, bluster and arrogance displayed by him.

Perhaps this could feature prominently in the advertising campaign for the next election? Personally, I feel that if the Government has nothing to hide, why would it aintain its failure to answer simple questions regarding this purportedly fair and even lagislation?

I truly believe that a focus on Mr Avett's behaviour (instead of Costello's, or as well as) could in fact pay dividends - because to the majority of the public his continued refusal to answer questions in a full and frank manner is annoying and condescending - two things the public will not appreciate.

I agree that the Government is doing all it can to push through legislation without proper scrutiny. But I also suggest that the Labor Party's past actions are also not open to real scrutiny.

A number of the "conventions" now in place and now being torn into shreds by this government were put in place only over the past 9 years while the Labor Party, out of office in the lower house, still had the numbers with the minor parties in the Senate to play political games. And games were the sole objective of most of those "conventions".

For example, let's look at most of the committee inquiries and reports over the past 9 years. Well, surprise, surprise, Labor and the minor parties, forming the majority on each committee, invariably come out with a majority report which is ALWAYS critical of the government. Never has there been a suggestion that the government is right about anything. And when information and submissions to the Senate don't suit the opposition, they simply ignore the submissions. So, exhaustive documentary evidence that Labor views about, say, levels of poverty in Australia or the incidence of violence were seriously flawed and overstated, just got ignored by Labor and the other maddies.

No wonder most of these "valuable" Committee reports are equally flawed and incorrect. The basic mission for 9 years in the Senate has been to not let facts get in the way of bashing the government. So, now we should be outraged because you don't like the majority reports from the Senate committees? Give me a break.

And how about dealing with being representative of the Australian electorate instead of giving jobs to the boys like Mr Ludwig.

When you clean up your own act, I might be impressed by your poncing about. Until then, go and find something useful to do with your time - you've got two more years of total futility and impotence to put up with.

Who of you out there voted for conservative MP's or senators either as a first or second preference? I put them last.

You've only got yourself to blame if you're complaining.

Yep, we got a tyranny of the majority. But as a minority individual, I'm already familiar with that in most aspects of my life. I just have to get used to it and make the best of what I can in a hostile environment.

I can't believe how many people are complaining about the Coalition majority considering how obvious it is that a lot of them voted conservative in the first place!

Some argue that they didn't vote for what Howard is doing. Well... he's hardly going to remain moderate with the majority he's been given now is he. And besides - we had been spoon-fed more than enough crap over the 8 years prior to the last election to give any credibility to the verbal diarrhoea this pathological liar dribbles. The greatest trick Howard ever pulled was convincing the working-class that he actually cared about them.

And to all those Australians who voted for the evil they knew because of apathy and complacency - remember this... All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. A government unchecked is a government corrupt.

We’ve taken for granted the fact that we were the "lucky country"; only appreciating what we’ve had now that we’re losing it.

I'm not saying "Everyone, vote Labor", but whoever’s voted in next time - let's make sure that they don't have control of the senate. My proposal: Anyone who's a swinging voter or is not sure or simply doesn't care - just vote against the Coalition! They'll get in anyway. And I'm sure they will for many more years to come. But at least this way there will be a senate to scrutinize their sometimes radical ideology.

I only hope this country has learnt their lesson from all this. That way, the rights that we lose; along with the values and the way of life that we've held dear for so many years – won't entirely be in vein.