Chris, there was a time when a certain PM thought so little about the House of Reps that he rostered his appearances in that most hallowed of places. That same PM thought the Senate was comprised unrepresentative swill. We're used to watching you and your colleagues behave like a camorra.

The issue of the Senate providing checks and balances is not worth getting upset about. Chris, it's time to reach for the travel brochures and go on one of those 'fact finding missions'.

See what happens when you don't treat us seriously; we respond in the same way.

I agree with your sentiments about the abuse of Senate power, I think the governments contempt for senate procedure is a slap in the face of Aust. democracy, I also think your plan to form non-government committes is a good idea, and long overdue.

But do you have the guts to really take the govt. to task Hon. Senator?

Or, like your parties performance in the last 2 budget replys will you squirm around, mimicking the govt. and generally making fools of yourselves? Happily supporting a $39 Billion dollar waste on tax cuts while infrastructure rots?

And will you ignore the immoral war in Iraq in the next election? Just like last time?

Will you support anti-democratic counter terrorism laws? Or will you defend our democratic rights like a decent opposition should?

I know that you are well-intentioned man Senator, but untill your party can differentiate itself from this govt. you ai'nt gonna get my vote

For the last year I have been wondering: if a Prime Minister has control over the Senate, and there are no checks and balances in place to curtail him; then what is the difference between a Prime Minister and a dictator?

Romany,

The difference between a Prime Minister and a dictator is that we have a constitution that provides that regular elections shall be held for both houses of federal parliament. I consider that it is the height of arrogance to criticise the government's current majority in the Senate, as this majority was provided by the votes of the people, and can be taken away by them at any subsequebt election if they so choose. The labor party also helped with an own goal in victoria where the family first sentaor was elected on labor party preferences. If you consider that the people have lost the confidence of the political elite it may be necessary to dismiss the people, and appoint another.

Thank you, plerdsus. My query, while perhaps seeming naive, carried no agenda - I wasn't criticising but am genuinely exposing my ignorance.

So, o.k., a Senate can be comprised of a majority, which in turn supports the political affiliations of the Prime Minister, yes? Objectively then a Prime Minister who has the senate on-side is able to weild more power than a Prime Minister who does not?

Once again objectively...wouldn't such a system facilitate abuse of power? After all, role of the US Senate in the Bush elections has been widely publicised and, in some quarters, held responsible for his ascension to President.

Why is the system not set up to ensure that there is no Senate majority...yes, I know you said its a matter of public choice...but surely a senate without a biased political agenda could more fairly take on the role of Caesor's wife?

Chris Evans and his Dear Leader, Beazley Jong Kim, will never get over not being able to strut the boards in the Senate. Now that even their beloved Senate Committee system is getting its come - uppance, things are looking bad for the Opposition members of the ‘unrepresentative swill’: fewer opportunities to play Grand Inquisitor and be extremely rude to polite public servants. Heavens above! We will no long hear about irrelevant and boring things such as children overboard, military justice and GST.

Shame on us voters! We gave power to the Government to do these dreadful things to the Senate at the last election. As that paragon of common sense, Lyn Allison said, we didn’t know what we were doing. Democracy is a curse.

But wait a minute; “Labor accepts that the senate majority won by the government at the last election gave it the capacity to implement its legislative program.” So, what’s the problem?

Ah yes. Despite the fact that Labor accepts the democratic wishes of the people, the way in which the Government has used the endorsement is an “abuse of power” which represents a “direct attack on our democratic processes and the role of the Senate.”

How can this be, Senator Evans? If the Government has cruelled democracy as you say it has, shouldn’t you and the other oppressed ALP politicians be running around all over the world seeking help against our dreadful Government? Shouldn’t Australia be full of soldiers wearing the blue berets of the UN? We really need help, man; not Labor and non-government senators forming their own committees!

Sorry about the sarcasm, but you must realise that you are now addressing real people, not your fellow drones in the Senate. Even those here who support the ALP are unlikely to take your silly scare tactics seriously