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.

Constitutionally the Senate was designed to ensure that the big states could not use their majority of members in the Reps to ride roughshod over the smaller states. With the emergence of a two party system we have a situation where the Australian political agenda is still very much dominated by NSW and Victoria but also a situation where the Labor and Coalition Senators fall in line behind their party. In other words the check that the senate is supposed to have on the house of reps has all but disappeared.
The cross benches at least bring back some measure of review. We may not like it but we need to bear in mind that about 60% of Australians will vote for either the ALP or the coalition. About another 15% will vote for anyone as long as they are not ALP or the Coalition and the remaining 25% try and place their vote (often with very little success) with which ever candidate seems to have a platform that is not an extended ego trip.
In that context the existence of independents at least gives a voice to those 40% of Australians who are less than impressed with either of the major Parties.

Examinator

I fully concur with Foxy and Baygon's opinions on your topic.

I was relieved when Turnbull voted against Rudd's bail-out package, because I was knew this would provide the opportunity to widen the possibilities - and this was achieved.

A two party system is not a democracy - it is a hung parliament.

The cross-bench senators only have any power at all because of the knee-jerk opposition of the Coalition (Labor would be as bad in the same situation). To the extent that you disapprove of deals made to win the votes of the the minority parties and independents, you need look no further than the opposition to see whom to blame.

Sylvia.

I too agree with Foxy and Baygon and Fractelle.
I would of course like to correct a couple of furphies/misinformation being expressed it is the preferential voting system that keeps the Coalition viable in a first past the vote system Labor would be almost unbeatable….not good for the country.

The difference in the voting systems between the House and Senate is the Senate’s a preferential PROPORTIONAL system. As the name suggests its seats are allocated on the basis of the proportion of the votes received determines the allocation of the seats. This system more accurately represents the public’s views/opinions. The idea that only two party polarities accurately reflect the views of the public is preposterous. It is impossible for any thinking individual to agree with every policy either party comes up with, even their own members don’t .
In short the two party dominance polarizes politics (not good for the country). Policies choices are depicted as either/or extremes e.g. Capitalism or Socialism (absolute rubbish and debate ends up over fixed dogma . Even though common sense indicates that neither extreme is totally defensible . Real creative solution are smothered
The Senate’s a proportional system gives a wider choice (voice) other opinions in proportion to the votes they achieve. The fact that the Senate is more highly contested demonstrates the public’s desire for less polarized choices.
In that I applaud Xenophon’s actions. His stance will help several million people of Aussies *including* SA. He did his job as a Senator.

In reality many Aussies want green solutions as represented by their proportional numbers in the Senate. The vote DOES represent the proportional support in the states that have green senators.

If proportional voting was brought in the Reps we would witness a lessening of the two party dominance forcing more compromises/coalitions (more alternative, less careerist hacks).
Messy administratively but true democracy is messy. Nor is the Italian example the only other outcome.

We only need to be reminded of the effects of the Howard government's control of the Senate and what this meant for policy in terms of lack of consultation and proper review.

If nothing else this should be enough to make one vote for minors in the Senate. Give me a good Green, Democrat (RIP) or Independent anyday to keep the b's honest.

I doubt Work Choices would have made it through the Senate if the legislation was properly scrutinized and concessions made.

Xenophon's job is to represent his electorate which lies in SA and for them the fate of the Murray Darling and the Coorong is vitally important. Good on him for doing his job.

Turnbull was also doing his job in opposition. I actually agree with him about the handouts and the opposition would be remiss if they merely rubber-stamped the policies of the incumbent government.

Personally, I think baygon and the others have summed up the reality pretty well.
politics in Oz is really just a game of "good cop/bad cop" played on a national scale. Luckily Oz is one of the few surviving democracies where the citizens can still make a difference, albeit a small one, and as long as we keep putting people with morals and an Agenda on the cross-benches, we have a chance. I day-dream of the Federal election where a majority of Independents get elected, wouldn't that set the cat among the pigeons!
Oh, and they'll NEVER let us have CIR (citizen initiated referenda), you'd have to blow up all the TV towers and MAKE people come out on the streets to achieve that!

Pelican

Your point about the Howard government having total control is a good one and probably why we now have a senate with enough numbers now to prevent Rudd from becoming a hegemony like the previous administration.

However, while I agree Turnbull did the right thing, I don't think it was for the right reasons. He offered no compromise or alternative solutions, he simply blocked the proposal. Did he not consider that the independents and Greens would be willing to work out a compromise? He could've achieved some real credibility in offering a viable alternative.

Fractelle
I agree and made a similar point in Foxy's "Have the Liberal's lost the plot" thread in relation to the sincerity and motivation behind Turnbull's stance on the stimulus package.

Dear Fractelle and Pelican,

I too had high hopes when Turnbull first took
over as Leader of the Liberal Party. But,
unfortunately he's disappointed me since due to
his stance on so many issues. All the Libs seem
capable of doing is attacking (ok that's their job),
but how about offering some solutions?

I watched the ABC's 'Q and A,' programme the other
night and Hockey was an embarrassment on the show.
Abbott of course ... no more needs be said there.

They had better wake up to themselves soon, even
Costello won't be able to bail them out.

Foxy,
There in lies my criticism of the way politics are 'played' like two head strong children neither prepared to give an inch....opposition for opposition sake. Both sides fail to see that their job is to run the country for the benefit of the people not vested interests and the party.
I remember listening to Fred Chaney (Lib WA) in Senate way back and thinking how objective and sensible he was (even if I disagreed with him he was trying to improve the legislation) once he went to the reps he was just another trained/controlled chimp in a suit, chewed up and spat out by the system.
A loss to Australian politics.

"I remember listening to Fred Chaney (Lib WA) in Senate way back and thinking how objective and sensible he was (even if I disagreed with him he was trying to improve the legislation) once he went to the reps he was just another trained/controlled chimp in a suit, chewed up and spat out by the system.
A loss to Australian politics."

True. The biggest problem is that the MPs who could do some good are placed in the party straightjacket as soon as they get into a position where they can make a difference. You then get the phenomenon where the best speeches and values are forced to the sidelines and ignored, while all party members are forced to move along a prescribed political path as a herd.

Unfortunately, it's the only way for political parties to survive. The best that can happen is that MPs with good ideas are able to enact them using their politically-correct screens as cover. The downside (for them) is that they might never receive the credit (as no one knows what they've done!).

Dennis Pryor, with his tongue-in-cheek
sums up the Members of Parliament thus:

1) backbencher:

A member of Parliament with a brilliant future behind him,
a trudger through the lobbies, a party man, a spender of
electoral allowances, a consumer of free air-tickets, a
collector of living-away-from-home expenses, a
commonwealth car passenger, a jet-set junketeer, a
cultivator of his electorate, a survivor of pre-selection.

There are three types - the disgruntled failed frontbencher,
the seatwarmer who will never make it, and the still hopeful,
hyperactive aspirant to a portfolio.

2) frontbencher

a) A friend of the Prime Minister
b) A long-standing party hack who cannot be left out.
c) A tool of the public service.
d) A political assasin ready to knife the Prime
Minister in the back.

Then of course there is 'preselection.'

preselection

The process of blackmail, bribery and ballot-stuffing
used by the parties to decide which of their nonentities
we are to have the privilege of voting for.
Preselection is a battleground of factions where friends
are rewarded and enemies punished.

Factions are the new growth stock in Australian politics.
Formerly monolithic in nature, parties are now developing
splits under the strain of special interest groups and
maverick individuals in the Party.

Foxy,
Love it! It has so much truth from what I've seen.

"1) backbencher:

A member of Parliament with a brilliant future behind him,
a trudger through the lobbies, a party man, a spender of
electoral allowances, a consumer of free air-tickets, a
collector of living-away-from-home expenses, a
commonwealth car passenger, a jet-set junketeer, a
cultivator of his electorate, a survivor of pre-selection."

Yup, describes Costello to a T.

Fractelle,
I asked Belly what odds on the next election being Costello V Rudd I recon 50/50 what other hope do they have? Turnbull is losing whose next? deputy leader...I don't think so
Hockey (the Hockey pu(c)k goes where he's pushed(also see mid Summers Night Dream) nope
chris Pyne (he wishes)
Nick Minchin (God help us if he does)trust me he's a hard man a bully
Tony Abbott (give us a break)
I recon the panic will set in >12 mths out and Costello will be drafted same as Keating. Both men are driven by their egos