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

Sage,
Just for the record - a certain ex-PM reduced his appearances in the House of Reps in response to the then Opposition strategy of not asking him any questions.

The reason we have this situation's because of the constitutionally illegal compulsory preferential voting system, which disenfranchises everyone but the two despotic factions of globalisation, environmental and social destruction, lib/lab.

Labor can create all the committees it wants, but until it puts forward something to benefit people and not continue supporting the despotic path of insane politics facing us, nothing will change. I expect we'll continue to see the religiously entrapped, blindly leading us down the road to collapse.

Senator Evans, knows the situation, but like all fools, thinks we can't see it. I doubt the heights of arrogance can be higher attained than by those representing us and their supporters. Luckily they all live in denial so won't see the crunch until their coagulated despotic cities fall around them, bring it on.

Chris,
I hope that I can provide some helpful advice for you on this matter. The answer is for the Australian Labor Party to transform itself into the Australian Labour Party, subtle spelling difference, huge psycological mindset shift.

Perhaps if the ALP stopped acting as a de-facto Liberal Party, and returned to the centre of politics representing working families, the ALP would attract more votes, and the problem would solve itself. However while the right wing awu faction controls the party, sadly for democracy, and the people of this great nation, we will suffer from machinations of this kind, as a former friend of mine used to say "wake up to yourself."

I had thought the question at issue was diminution of the Senate’s role, not the question of a democratic majority. Here I equate, perhaps naively power to question (and impede) as exposing all view points for view by the electorate (which if ill informed, as is common, assumes the questioner relates to the best interest of the elector or country).

If democracy depends in part on information then limiting questions and committees can be contrary to democracy.

If in fact much is designed to protect and aid survival of the member or Party or to confer largesse, then the electorate can and should avoid voting for the member or Party not deny exposure.

Since so much of behaviour is hypocritical from politics to business to religion any attempt at rectifying a situation must be viewed with the suspicion of its being partisan.

Since politics in Australia is so much about power and personality and perceived as a grubby/entertaining game of posturing perhaps it does not matter at least until say a committee investigating immigration practices or ministerial conduct or other, impinging on the interests of the electorate is denied existence. Presumably the point at issue.

Romany,

I accept that your query on the senate was a little naive, and that you agree with me that the people are entitled in a democracy to elect whomever they wish. As far as your query about ensuring that the government never has a majority is concerned, I cannot see how that can be achieved in any democratic manner. Not many people know that before 1949 there were senate electorates, and a political party could gain as big a majority there as in the house of reps. In 1949 the system was changed to the present one of proportional representation, which I think is better as it allows minority groups in the community who do not have enough support to gain reps seats to be represented in the senate. Remember as well that the senate has all the powers of the House of Lords in 1901, including the power to refuse supply, and that these powers can only be changed by a referendum. The powers of our senate, which is the oldest elected upper house in the world, are second only to the United States senate, and the fact that the current government has a majority there can only reflect on the parlous state of the opposition parties.

I don’t think Senator Evans was criticising the vote of the electorate in the last senate elections, more how the government was abusing its majority. While the government as the holder of the majority of senate seats will in most cases see its bills passed, it are the actions that prevent any revue of those bills both in parliamentary debate, and through the committee system that is the problem here.

Surly a government with this majority could afford to listen to criticism of its agenda, that is after all why we bother with an opposition in the parliamentary system rather than a winner takes all situation. By curtailing this scrutiny the government does a disservice both to itself and our democratic process.

Party politics has us where we are. Will we never learn from the past? That, under our democratic system, 'he/she who has the most marbles, wins' and power is simply abused and becomes more & more unaccountable.

If, for whatever reason, it is too hard to change constitutionally, the recent "conscience" vote re; RU486 may have given us a lead as to how both houses could become truly democratic. I'm suggesting a conscience vote on all matters! Elected representatives would then become more answerable to their respective electorates and people may or, would possibly take a keener interest in becoming a part of the democracy, as a result.

The party line is now so obviously undemocratic and certainly not the voice of the electorate. Never has been. It's simply the voice of the caucus, being just a few members of the ruling party, who happen to control the numbers. Lately, on some matters considered of extreme importance, the PM seems to have singularly made those very critical decisions! WMD's? National security? And it's called democracy? To me, it's looking more like nothing whatsoever to do with the wishes of the "people of Australia's".

When are we going to get any level of Government that is fair dinkum, fully accountable and truly interested in the welfare of the Nation and all our people? I'm not so sure I'll see it in my time.....

The ALP isn't reforming itself anytime soon, so don't hold your breath.

If/when the ALP next wins government, they are unlikely to re-write the Senate rules to give minor parties a lot of power in committees.

Romany, there are other checks and balances in our society. We have a strong culture of rights - that is to say, people _believe_ in their own guts that they have rights, which means they are more likely to try and stop something they don't like. That tends to matter more, I think, than giving Senator Evans back his influence

Also, the Prime Minister has to make sure he can keep all his Senators in line. Lots of people in the Liberal party room hate and distrust Howard, and he can't bully or bribe every last one of them. Some of them retain some independence and could revolt if they chose. (Of course, they tolerate him because he keeps winning elections).

If you want to know about how a Liberal Prime Minister needs to play off the different factions and personalities inside the party - and how he gets ripped apart if he fails - you could read "The Gorton Experiment" by Alan Reid.

Reid is biased - he was a Packer and Murdoch journalist who helped Menzies to create the 'thirty-six faceless men' jibe that is supposed to have helped Menzies win the 1954 election.

But he has a clear vivid style, and can explain politics - talking both about broad ideas, and the very personal and hateful struggle between real people for real power.

You might find it in second hand shops, or in larger libraries - try a University library if no-where else has it.

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com
http://www.lastsuperpower.net

Julius Caesar( John Howard) and his party are popular now. He has a good human face on tv when it comes to conflict morality. Its time to come clean on Iraq. No weapons of mass distruction were found. I do not care less if he lied to Costello.

"When are we going to get any level of Government that is fair dinkum, fully accountable and truly interested in the welfare of the Nation and all our people? I'm not so sure I'll see it in my time....."

Fedup2: I'd accuse you of being nothing but a cynic...if I didn't agree with you!

Personally, I think the problem with politics is politics, at the risk of sounding facetious. I think the system is fundamentally flawed. I'd suggest that anyone who gets into politics and stays there really is self-serving, but I'd also suggest that people get the governments they deserve. Would it be that difficult for the populace to really hold politicians to account? Not really. I don't think it's even that people can't be bothered to make the effort. I'm beginning to think with the way politics seems to be a big game of musical chairs that there's something distinctly masochistic about the electorate and humans in general. I mean humans have had thousands of years and a whole world to get it right, yet not a lot seems to change in the end.

As Nietzsche said, "the human situation is a bad situation because the human situation is all too human."

plerdsus,
With your limited amount of knowledge, if I were you I wouldn't be holding myself up as the be all and end all of knowledge for Romany. At times your posts can be just if not more naive.

if senator evans truly cared about 'accountable government',he and his colleagues would have instituted citizen referendum and direct election of ministers of state, when they were last in power.

he, and they, did not. i conclude his real concern is that the other gang of political bandits are in power, and his gang is not.

demos, I can only agree with you completely

Romany,
You won't learn much more from plerdus, or this or any other topic, I suggest you continue to post your own opinions and view the responses on their merit. There is a great deal of knowledge in this site, if you stand back and observe it, good luck mate.

And demos wrote ....

< i conclude his real concern is that the other gang of political bandits are in power, and his gang is not. >

A secret ballot on all issues in all Govt Institutions could maybe help to create more (better?) harmony within all gangs?

Abbott and Costello ?

Of course I'm referring to the unique situation where the two leading (comedy duo?) politicians of the land (the PM & HIS DEPUTY) are diametrically opposed to each other, in relation to a (said to have been), matter of honour between them.

And what's so "unique" about it, you may ask?

Well .... It seems that .........one of them is telling the truth!

There is no record of Evans ever demanding his Labor colleagues in Queensland create a house of review in that State. Hypocrite is the best words for Evans.

Here we go again, blaming your opponents for winning. The reason the coalition have a majority in the senate is because the alternative (Labor) we so uninspring, so stale, so pathetic that Australians were left with no option.
The blame for the current situation rests firmly on the shoulders of you Mr Evans and your fellow mediocre colleagues. The sooner you realise this the sooner you can formulate alternate ideas and policies. Ten years on I am yet to see one. Appears at this stage Labor will continue the policy of rolling up in a ball and hoping the Coalition will trip over their own feet. As a former long time member of the ALP I am saddened to see a party that was once an organisation brimming with ideas, visions and excitement now has the appearance and taste of a loaf of week old bread.
PFH

I was impressed by Senator Chris Evans' article. Of course he drew a clear distinction between the government's voting majority in the Senate - not the issue here - and its new propensity to emasculate the Senate's debate and review powers on matters of government accountability - which is the issue here . I think the initiative to establish independent review committeees with Labor, Greens and other senators taking part is a good one. It will expose up what the government is trying to do. They should choose their issues carefully, to maximise public interest in their deliberations. Also, senators have many other ways to bring on public criticism on important matters e.g. in adjournment speeches, MPIs, censure motions. Opposition Senators should not be discouraged by the government's temporary present majority in the Senate - the Senate still matters a great deal in our threatened democracy. Our media should report the Senate more seriosly - their usual neglect of the Senate compounds the problems Chris Evans discusses here. Thanks, Chris, for a good essay.

Dear Chris
Many people are asking how come you did an about turn on the expansion of uranium mining. You have undone all the good that you have done in the past. all of the marches that you went on all the help that you have given to young aspiring trade unionists. Now you have joined the establishment and voted to support the Howard Governmnent on uranium mining. At one time you never had much and you marched arm in arm with others who also never had much. Now these days you are earning over one hundred thousand dollars a year and the tune has changed you have now become one of the establishment. Once people that represent people to improve the lifestyle of ordinary people get voted into Parliament they change they forget where they come from (Judas) this is shameful to keep your position in the Senate you sell your soul. Please think again and turn around that bad decision you made in supporting Kevin Rudd. For Kevin Rudd to support expansion of uranium mining this was expected after all he is a social democrat. But you Chris you claim that you are a socialist this is unforgivable.