A DD would probably lead to the Greens holding the balance of power in their own right, an easier situation than now, but less than the ideal as Labor would prefer a choice of partners to get legislation through. The Victorian Legislative Council (ALP 19, DLP 1, Greens 3, Nationals 2, Liberals 15) is almost there as when both Labor parties combine they can defeat Opposition motions, but Labor needs the Greens to get legislation carried against the Opposition. It would prefer one more DLP MLC and one fewer Greens MLC, a view that those who think Labor and the Greens are natural allies rather than competitors find hard to udnerstand.

I expected a DD because I did not think the Opposition would cave in so spectacularly on IR, but now that it has done so, I think Labor will manage the Senate successfully, accepting defeat on some issues and reaching compromises on others, so no DD will be needed. There are no issues left worth going to a DD on.

Behind all the discussion is the conflict between those who want untrammelled power and argue to reduce the role of the Senate and the role of the states (if not abolish both outright) and those who believe that power should not be centralised, which is something the Senate protects us from. Every attempt to reduce the power of the Senate, whether it be the idea of breaking the nexus or one of the various simultaneous election proposals, has been rejected by referendum, even when both major parties have argued in favour. The improvement I advocate is the replacement of the DD with a referendum of the people on legislation on which both Houses do not agree. That is probably too democratic for some of our ‘democrats’.

“What we need is an electrol system that allows us to get rid of these academic parasites off our payrol, & into gainfull employment. This bloke, from the aptitude displayed here, & the lack of any interest in morals, may just be able to handle shopping trolley collection, at a smaller super market.”

The only way we can do that, is to ban political parties and make our political and bureaucratic system legally accountable. Currently we have a two faction single party in control, with what may be classed as of shoot cults and token independents. This party is ideologically driven and does not represent the people or it's views, it and it's supporting bureaucracy is completely unaccountable for their actions and outcomes. This is he reason our society if so dysfunctional

We need the scrutiny and review of a senate, but not in it's present form. The first thing to do, is to get rid of compulsory preferential voting, which in many peoples view is unconstitutional. Our constitution demands a direct vote for elections, not two party preferred vote, which in the end, always gives the vote to the lab/lib coalition.

We also need to introduce referendum style voting for any decision outside election polices, as this would then put the people in charge and not the elites and their vested interests. With our technology, it would be easy and logically progressive.

The Opposition always said it would not block the government's planned IR legislation in it's entirety. Many Liberal/Coalitioners did not approve the extent to which Work Choices was allowed to reduce real conditions and wages. I don't think even Hockey himself believed his own party-line rhetoric on WC and Turnbull was never a hard-liner on IR matters.

As far as the Senate goes - we can't have it both ways. The Senate is vital to debate and ensures consultation on legislation and that it is not just rubber-stamped. Look at the consequences under the Howard government which passed Work Choices legislation without an election mandate nor with any real consultation in parliament. This is dangerous politics and akin to fascism.

Many people appear to be convinced by the importance of the Senate by voting for Greens or Independents in that House to ensure rigorous debate and no presumption of a mandate. A democracy should invite discussion, compromise, debate and consultation. The nature of the Senate assists in inviting consulation before presenting a bill to the House, albeit consultation does not always take place as it might.

Mandate is an over-used word especially when our preferential and single electorate voting system means that a Party can win power with a minority 'primary' vote.

Response to comments to date.

There have been some remarkable responses to my article. Those who have a bias against academics should ask themselves what Australia would be like without them. Logically there would then be no universities. Having worked 30 years in universities I have a high regard for most Australian academics although, especially in the area of government and public management, the activism of the 1970s has declined markedly in the period of economic rationalism, a serious a loss to society. Academics are in fact gainfully employed, frequently overworked, but scandalously undervalued in Australian society.

The article itself seems to have been partly misunderstood by some. The essence of it is that parliament has to be IMPROVED and that, in my view, the first step to that end should be to change the electoral system to proportional representation. I argue, here and in earlier OLO publications, that the Senate's working has clearly been improved since the introduction of proportional representation in 1949. It therefore makes perfect sense to extend proportional representation to the House of Representatives although preferably with a PR system (Party List) that eliminates the problems with the PR system now used in the Senate (Hare-Clarke). Not only would this improve the working of parliament, it would serve representative democracy and diversity of representation well. To say that what we have now is not too bad, is nonsensical. It is disgraceful as it is! The proposed electoral reforms are not to be confused with other problems such as federal-state relations, or dysfunctional aspects of the Westminster system. Add those and the mess is complete. NOTHING to be proud of bloggers.

The knowledge about alternative electoral systems is quite limited in Australia but those who can contribute to blogs can also access the massive information on internet and Google whatever they want to know: "proportional representation" is the key word.

Klaas Woldring.

Utter nonsense Klaas. The curse of our present system is the existence of single issue parties and candidates who can never aspire to government and bear no responsibility for the damage they do. Our parliaments needs nothing more than a strong government and a strong opposition.
DIS

Well DIS, we have neither.

Klaas