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.