Interesting to see that Malcolm King's paper has had a sequel. Disappointing to note that, as with responses to Malcolm's, a fair chunk of responses here are mere reactionary windprattle.
As to Denness' article, I was glad that the ideological furphy pushed concerning funding from the CFMEU was sent packing for the reasons given. Our environment is part of our common wealth and heritage under assault from the greedy, who employ the media to blur the concept of "public asset". These fund THEIR side of politics to a degree undreamed of by unions or any other public advocacy group combined. Yet those who belly-ache about union fundraising seemingly miss the forest for the trees concerning the big businees political funding they strangely never notice.
It is a good moment to finally distinguish between the disruptive Tasmanian CFMEU forestry division and the CFMEU overall, of course. The traditions informing the latter include those provided by the late Jack Mundy, who led the Sydney BLF in its fight for public "commons", Green bans against inappropriate developments and creation of Green zones back in the 'seventies, before being put under seige by the later discredited Norm Gallagher.
Finally, the dichotomy that comes of stressing the Greens challenge the social paradigm itself whilst the Democrats merely attempt to ameliorate the occasional failure of a workable system. The writer can't beleive that a Democrat would not have developed a viewpoint without also contemplating and challenging underlying economic and conceptual base(s).
In the wider scheme of things the differences are accentuated mainly by antisocial, disgruntled elements as "wedge" by misanthropists. These stress that relative little that is divisive, at the expense of the substantial commmonalities.But surely both parties have enough people of enough intelligence to get beyond the old crude, oppositional and adversarial politics of right-left-as-mutually- exclusive. Let them go the way practitioners like Howard ought to go.
It's way too late for quibbling about the colour of the cup when the tea has gone cold.

Q&A,

I have been interested in politics for amore than 40 years. I agree with you that having a Senate (or a State legislative Council) which is controlled by neither major party is good for democracy. It protects our freedom in the same way as having independent courts and a federal system, under which the democratically elected states have certain powers safe from federal interference, does. It also protects as because it forces a government that wants to push through legislation to have to compromise with other points of view.

A lot of people simply do not understand the concept. They think that a major party, which may get 44 per cent of the vote in the House of Representatives, has the right to do anything it likes. The system is more effective when another 10 per cent have to be convinced. Of course, the balance of power applies only when the two major parties disagree, so it is never true to say that the minor party has disproportionate power. It can do nothing without the support of one of the majors. Nor can a minor party senator be elected without reaching a quota, which is 14.3 per cent of the population.

The double dissolution provision is there to ensure that a government which feels frustrated by the Senate can appeal directly to the people, an appeal which it may lose of course; e.g., the Liberals complained about the previous Senate’s rejection of their IR laws but never dared have a double dissolution on the issue. I think we would be better off to drop the DD option and put any laws that the two Houses cannot agree on to a referendum held at the same time as the normal election (which I would have every four years on a set date).

The answer is for people to use their vote wisely, and not complain afterwards that they didn’t know their Labor preferences were going to Family First when this fact was reported in the press well before the election and any one is free to vote below the line.

I do not think I am alone in asking a few questions, first I am anti greens.
I find them far more than a conservation party, in fact other party's serve that role in my view better.
It is the radical minority politics they follow that puts me in the I do not like the greens line.
We so very often hear the quaint view about representation, you know the one Liberal/Labor/ Nationals split more than 90% of the senate vote.
Greens expect to control the Senate or have balance of power same thing.
10% able to swing the dog? while I like the concept of a house of review we would be better of without the dead hand of any minority in control.
Family first included.
One vote one value one house one government why not?

Because that would give free rein to worst excesses of government.

You don't like the greens, fine, vote for someone else. Remember the only reason that minor parties and independents have any power is because the two major parties are in competition. When they vote together all the others can do is marvel at the hypocrosy

What choice do we have? The major parties have both been captured by corporate interests, leaving the People unrepresented in parliament. Sure the Greens are flawed; amateurish, poor and idealistic. But they are honest, as only people without vested financial interests can be. For the forseeable future, only the Greens offer an organised independent voice in parliament, and while you might not like every piece of their policy platform, they do offer people a voice where there is none.

The people here writing off the Greens either have their head in the sand, or an interest in seeing them off. The Greens lie across four emerging faultlines in the 21st century, which can only see them grow as people become more disillusioned with the Majors. The Greens obviously stand for sustainability, and have been beating this drum for eleven long years while everybody attacked them. Suddenly everyone is a convert, and this is only going to increase as the effects of global warming touch more people.

Labor have left their social justice roots behind, for focus groups and marketing departments. The Greens stand for all the people denied a seat at society's table, who are only going to increase as our oil-based economy collapses.

The Labor government will bend its knee before the US Empire, or follow Whitlam into retirement. Only the Greens stood up in parliament and told our Emperor that he had no clothes on when Bush addressed our parliament. Remember how weak they were when the Iraq war was being debated, I never will.

And most importantly, only the Greens support grassroots democracy, or power to the People. Labor have abandoned their base and have no interest is handing power back to its rightful owners. Whitlam was their last gasp, they are a cowered and power-hungry coven now, Quislings one and all.

Sustainability, Peace and Non-violence, Social Justice and Grassroots Democracy; inevitable forces in the 21st century. The Majors cannot embrace even one of these principles without loosing their favoured status with the Oligarchy. In our generation, it will be the Greens or Fascism.

Line up.

I agree with you, Earthrise, the Greens offer a choice. Let's hope that which ever Party gets elected that they only have a small majority, and so cannot afford to become as arrogant as the present Coalition Government has become. I believe for the Senate to operate we need small parties and Independants to hold the balance of power. Poor drafting of the "Work choice" and Anti Terrorists laws are examples of the need for a functional Senate, not the rubber stamp we have at present.