In the light of Nick Xenophon’s (independent SA Senator) actions in the Senate holding up until more money for the Murray/Darling system was agreed. The question is raised objectively what IS the purpose/responsibility of cross bench Senator(s)? Are they justified in frustrating the government if not why then do so many people vote non "the big two" in the Senate

Dear examinator,

Many people have preferences outside the 'big two'
when it comes to voting in elections. Realistically
people realize that their preferences may not win,
so they deliberately allocate their preferences to the Senate,
to at least give them a voice. "Keep the bastards honest."

And it works. Look at the Government's bail-out package.
Crossbench Senators wanted stimulus changes to the package
in return for their support. Family First Senator Steve
Fielding wanted $4 billion diverted towards extra job
creation programs. The Greens wanted extra focus on energy
efficiency. Independent Senator Nick Xenophon wanted more
money spent on the Murray-Darling system.

Government's can't expect to have everything they propose,
simply rubber-stamped by the Senate. The system that we
currently have works pretty well. We may not always be
able to have a real say in choosing our own leaders, but
we have the additional back-up of being able to choose our
Senators. Which is not such a bad thing - is it?

Examinator,
you do not obviously understand the workings of the Senate or the electoral process.

Without me bothering to look it up, i think you will find that the minor party and independants in the Senate gained their seats by way of preferences from the two major parties. They only get a low percentage of 'primary votes'. The major parties do not want any left over votes to go to the opposition so they allocate them to the minors and independants. Most voters follow the 'How to Votes' of the majors and the preferences are allocated accordingly.

A Senator is elected to represent his state and if he campaigned on certain issues he has every right to presure the Government on those issues when he gets the opportunity.

He also has the right to raise questions which the Government would prefer not to be asked and make representations on behalf of his state constituants.

It seems you expect a 'rubber stamp' Senate and if so, why have a Senate at all?

Banjo “Without me bothering to look it up, i think you will find that the minor party and independants in the Senate gained their seats by way of preferences from the two major parties.”

I think too it has a lot to do with proportional representation… the way a dingbat like Bob Brown gets elected on a tiny minority of the dingbat vote, whereas he would be swept away with the flotsam and jetsam in a first-past-the-post vote.

Remember, there are always a few dingbats, usually they don’t matter and the only time they do is when proportional representation rules and they end up with a disproportional swinging vote with which to blackmail the rest of the nation.

Although, the senate questioning the stupidity and incompetence of the incumbent governments plans to ruin our childrens financial future warrants every scrutiny.

Col Rouge,
I think it has more to do with 'compulsory preferential voting'. I could live with proportional representation, whereby if a party gains say 10% of the vote then they get 10% of the Senate seats.

The Senate should not be a rubber stamp but efforts made to make it a proper house of review. I also think we are in dire need of Citizens Initiated Referenda, but that is wishfull thinking as it could reduce the power of the politicians.

Personally, I like to see non-big two senators in action. The problem with a big two senate is that it prevents proper review. Consider the following options:

* The Lower House has a Labor majority, the Upper House has a Labor majority. How much review will really be applied to Labor-generated policies? It becomes a rubber stamp, and we already have one of those in the Governor General.

* The Lower House has a Labor majority, the Upper House has a Coalition majority. It becomes a party blockade - the senators must play by the party rules rather than actually reviewing legislation.

Obviously, this is a worst case scenario. And, obviously, there are independent senators whose alliances are only thinly veiled. But those senators still have the freedom, should they choose, to act somewhat responsibly.