Mention of “New Matilda” and “Get Up” immediately tell us that we are heading down the path to the left. Add a few beers at the Politics in the Pub venue, and the tone of the article can be predicted. No need to read it.

However, I read far enough to wonder: If a majority of voters resent the Government’s control of the Senate, how did the Government get control of the Senate?

There is, of course, no answer. A statement like that is on a par with the one from Senator Lyn Allison, who said that the voters didn't know what they were doing when, shock horror, her little party lost out in the Senate.

The argument regarding the senate and representation has been around since Federalism. This article is particularly pertinent after the High Court ruling yesterday in which states have effectively been neutered. While this article undoubtedly has a political agenda and is permiated by anti Howard sentiment, it is a sad reflection of the state of the opposition in this country.

As usual the strength of the Howard government has been attributed to voter apathy and unfair senate representation. Instead of looking at the embarrassing and incompetent nature of ALP state politics, the ground swell of disillusion with unionism, and the out of touch Democrats, the left is looking for someone else to blame.

JH is in contol of the senate because the Australian public voted that way. It should also be noted that it is a rare occurence and one that the ALP and left in general should be ashamed of.

wre,

I would have to agree with you completely, except that you missed the most blatant piece of bungling by the ALP that was directly responsible for the current position in the Senate. In Victoria and Tasmania the ALP exchanged preferences with Family First, expecting to pick up a few easy preference votes. Instead, in Victoria, the ALP votes were redistributed, and Family First got the last seat. In Tasmania, a state that for years has been unfairly castigated for its inbreeding and low IQ, enough Labor voters had the sense to vote below the line and give their preference to the Greens candidate, for her to be elected. Needless to say, we hear nothing about this in the media.

While Beazley is just as unappealing as Howard the fact that we only have two choices is a direct result of us not having proportional representation.

In a PR system there are usually 3 or 4 major parties and several smaller ones. This means that there is usually a coalition government. Unlike the libs-nats pact the coalitions actually change from parliament to parliament. That means that the current opposition might be a partner in the next government. It completely changes the nature politics. Gone is all the black and whiteness and name calling of Australian politics. Shades of grey are suddenly possible.

It is unlikely that PR will be introduced in the current political climate. Another way to restore some balance is to offset the senate elections from the lower house. Since the senate represents the states it is not unreasonable that the federal senate is elected during state elections. This will give some power back to the states, which otherwise may as well be abolished after yesterdays high court decision.

Excuse my ignorance, but I thought the SA Upper House WAS proportionally represented.

It has 22 members elected for eight-year terms by proportional representation, with half the members facing ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_Legislative_Council

"This series of events led some commentators to call Xenophon the new "third force" in South Australian politics. His is an exceptional case because the South Australian Upper House is not elected by proportional representation."

Perhaps just a slip up or is it me?

"It is virtually impossible to elect minor party candidates to the House of Representatives. The electoral system is grossly biased in favour of the major parties in that house."

The "major parties" are only major because they get the vast majority of votes. Is it really that much of a problem to have a system which favours parties that more people vote for?