Many argue that the Constitution is outdated, etc, but as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I have extensively researched constitutional provisions and the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and while I may have certain reservations about the Constitution in overall it still proves to be very workable. Just that politicians want more and more power and devise any system to get it, regardless how unconstitutional it is. After all, to challenge that conduct is meaning you face huge legal cost while the abusers use taxpayers monies to fund their abuses.
As Andrew is well aware of my past correspondences, I pursue the creation of an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, a constitutional council, that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to constitutional powers and limitations. Now, if this was in place then many of Andrews own complaints would likely no longer eventuate because there be finally a source of appropriate information what is or isn’t constitutionally permissible.
Yet, I for one am not aware that Andrew, despite his various complaints, has in any way supported the creation of the OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN.
Hence it can be assumed that he rather have that the Federal Government legislate, no matter how unconstitutionally it might be, and then leave it up to the ordinary Australian, regardless how poor they might be, to fight huge legal battles, if they somehow can afford this, to try to get JUSTICE!
“KEEP THE BASTARD HONEST” hardly appears to be the Australian Democrats real intention where they refuse/ignore to pursue this constitutional council to be created to seek to avoid abuses and misuses of power!

Senator,
It is incumbent on the Senate to review legislation, and in some cases amend, however it is not in the Senate's brief, to reject the legislation of a duly democratically elected government of any persuasion.

SHONGA,

See thats where you are wrong. The Senates job is to represent the states. No where in the constitution does it say "The Senate shall approve all legislation put forward by the House of Reps".

I would also point out that the Senate is as democratically elected as the House of Reps.

The Senate is actually the House of review. It is to represent the electors State interest even so the same electors also vote for the Federal representatives in the House of Representatives. As such, every elector votes for a Senate member (for State representation) and a House of Representative member.
Legislation proposed by the Federal government in the house of Representative may be perfectly reasonable for the government but Senators may reject the entire legislation on the ground it is making inroads into State legislative powers in an unconstitutional manner. It is for this purpose that the Senate actually was created, to ensure that the Bill (proposed legislation) is acceptable to the State representatives in the Senate!
As such, the Federal government could claim to have a mandate for something they pursued in the election and the senators could argue that they were elected to oppose this kind of legislation and as such also have a mandate.
Regretfully far to often Senators sell their soul, so to say, to be able to become a Minister even so the Framers of the Constitution intended that the “Government of the Day” would be only those who were elected to the House of Representatives! There is a conflict of interest for a Senator to represent the State and its interest and then acting as a Minister to represent those of the House of Representatives! Section 64 of the Constitution does allow however a non-elected Member of parliament for up to 3-months to be a Minister.