While many will disagree the senate is a problem, two independents who may have very little support have far too much power.
We seem to have more than a chance both house will be dissolved long before the term ends.
In fact it would be a card most would expect to be played after considering independents actions in the senate.
Will Rudd/ Gilard act if IR reform is blocked?
I hope and believe so, workchoices was a very bad thing and the promise to rebuild IR is one that should be fought for.

The greedy power hungry unions are likely to cause more people to be laid off work by their unreasonable demands. The economies downturn hopefully will reduce the wages of greedy CEO's. Hopefully it will also make people thankful they have a job instead of demanding unreasonable wages from employers. The Teachers and nurses unions are among the biggest whingers despite their wages rising rapidly under the Howard Governments reign.

Come on runner tell me what greedy union got what large wage rise?
Tell me why you think your God would not want a worker to get fair wages.
Lets deal in the threads idea, we have had double dissolution of both house before.
Then both houses sit to pass the bills that bought on the election.
We are going to at least see the threat used, in my view a full election will take place early.
Why?
Well say what you like but the senator for poker machines and dry rivers is lost, few wanted him to have that much power.
Family first can best serve Australia by joining the Democrats on the used to be bench's.
An early election would remove them, we would be better governed by other than two Will Robinson's power hungry but still lost in space.

It is good to have independents in the senate. In fact it is best to have ONLY independents there, so they act more as a random jury, reflecting the views of ordinary Australians, rather than the fixed views of established large parties.

I think that inderpendants are a peverbial 'fly in the ointment'.

They usually come from a very narrow viewed background, green, gay, or strong religious background and get thier own personal agendas mixed up with there purpose, that being to keep the sitting government honnest. Trouble is, they may as well be the government as they have the last say in most cases.

Take that Harradine fellow from Tasmania. The government couldn't do a danmed thing without him sticking his 'one eyed gay, religious view' in. Millions upon millions of tax payers dollars where wasted time and time again because of him. Why should he have been given all that power.

In my view no one should be able to form a party unless they have the smarts and the personel to govern the country. All they do is create confusion at the ballot box.

Let them run in the local elections where they can persue their own agenda directly in the area where they live and leave the running of the country up to the parties that are capable of doing the 'whole' job.

This whole preference thing has become a bit like the NBL pre-season draft if you ask me. I'le give you this if you allow me to do that.

Almost smells like 'price fixing' don't you think?

Rehctub,

What you describe is the current situation where the senate is comprized of nearly-even big parties and only a few independents between.

This will not happen when ALL the senate is comprized of independents.

The ideal is direct-voting of all citizens on every proposal coming from the parliament, but since this is not feasible, short of that, a random mix of elected independents is closest to representing the citizens of Australia. Note that their agendas cannot be just personal - after all, somebody had to vote for them!