I believe that the senate is a valuable contribution to democracy and should act as a house of review, in a similar way to the Westminster house of lords. As not doubt most people are aware that was not quite the original intention, as it was more concerned with protecting the rights of the states. However I agree the system in the senate requires reform. I hold to the following principles:-

1 I should know where my vote is likely to end up
2 Any one should be able to stand for election.
3 The ballot paper must be relatively simple.

Under the current system a vote above the line leads to unpredictable consequences as far as the voter is concerned and is open to abuse. Voting below the line leads to a fairly high risk that vote will be informal and therefore not counted. It also requires considerable research to come up with an order which makes sense and risks one´s preference going somewhere that you do not like.

I have looked at various systems and they all seem to have potential problems. I therefore propose the following system for discussion. The total number of preferences would be limited to 24 for the states or 4 times the number of senate seats available. A formal vote would require you to fill out 24 squares only. This would in my view ensure that your vote did not end up in the hands of someone that you did not approve of. It would also ensure that you could vote for an individual, simply because he was a good candidate rather than just accept, whoever the party machine decides to put at the top of the list.

An iteresting though warmair, wish I had thought of it!
I question todays Senate, is it a house of review?
Has it ever been.
Haven given my view about its formation and why in pre Federation days I must ask.
What part of Democracy supports rule of minority's?
Let us forget the squirrel grip it both now and after next years Senate renewal has on Abbott.
Is it more democratic to stop both Labor and Liberal governments passing legislation at the will of say the party that got one thousand nine hundred votes .
Then took a Senate seat with a crafted preference deal, surely sidelining thousands of voters wishes?
Are we fair dinkum enough to see greens contaminated Labor and pressed demands not wanted by most.
And do we see the danger in the senate next year and even now?
If democracy is letting the odd angry idiot team run the country lets have a dictatorship!
Until we have the back bone to stop bending our heads to true damage that house does lets change a few things.
A time will come, very soon, that sees Abbott,s wish for a dissolving of both houses will be seen as a must.
Lets first stop paying party,s to run in that house.
Then put a referendum that says the Senate is a house of review and that only.
Appoint Senators from within both party,s based on votes gained only, and introduce one vote one value, in all houses and states.
End forever preference deals that deal most of us out.

Belly - Although you don't name it, I get the feeling that real democratic proportionality is becoming somewhat attractive?

Belly,

Yes it should be a house of review and that only.
Senators should not be able to hold ministerial positions or positions of power in any party. This makes a joke of the whole process of review.
Three preferences on the ballot paper as the limit.

SD

The number of preferences must not be limited so long as the preferences are made by the voter, rather than by a party.

One should be able for example to say 'NO' to the big parties by preferencing all small parties.

Yes, it was a problem in the recent elections that voters were not aware of the inside dealings between parties, but that must not be used as punishment to those other voters who understood and supported that particular policy of preferencing.

So optional and unlimited preferences above the line to parties rather than to individual candidates, is the way to go.

Why can't it be that:
Senate candidates failing to achieve a certain minimum portion of first preferences are automatically eliminated from contention, and;
The distribution of 'preferences' is limited to only three or four such 'rounds' - with further eliminations at each round of candidates failing to achieve a certain determined portion of the total 'distributed' votes.

With each elimination, 'preferences' are distributed only to candidates still remaining eligible before the distribution commences.

An alternative would be, as someone else has suggested, to have 'above the line' preference choice, by numbering up to ten boxes on this line. (But, I still think the number of preference distribution 'rounds' needs to be limited to only 3 or 4, and still with candidates being eliminated if they fail at any stage to amass the predetermined minimum requirement for progression to the next round.)

In either of the above systems, 'below the line' numbering could still be available, but, with the number of choices to be made to constitute a valid vote being limited to, say, four times the total number of senators to be elected in that particular ballot.

How the Senate operates as a 'house of review' is another matter.
Let's get the voting system right at least, so that the members elected do in fact represent the 'real' majority view of the relevant constituency. (Because, at least in part, the 'system' is proving not to be reliable in that respect under current arrangements/methodology.)

It seems clear the nation is picking up on this problem.
Not found of Xenophon not at all, but his view offers us an answer.
In past discussions we have aired views many if not almost all in this case, do not under stand preferences.
Asked the question time and again at the polling, and hearing Liberals WARN their voters about Liberal Democrats, it is deep and troubling.
We must take this on board to fully understand the impacts.
*Only a double dissolving of both houses can stop us suffering 6 full years, at least, of madness, know Abbott to pass bills must get ALP on side.
No laughing matter! we need governments to be able to rule, mine in power too.
Now do not expect such an election.
Even if Labor stalls his every move and becomes purely negative.
Abbott understands this.
He knows a new leader and confronting its past leaves Labor much more likely to gravely cut his numbers, in both houses.
So settle in and watch this it will be entertaining and sometimes quite idiotic.

Belly, do you have any comment to make about your "Total destruction of The Greens" nonsense. Annalise the result in the seat of Melbourne and you can work out where Labor is heading long term. As I said with Rudd's (Labor) race to the bottom, last Saturday they hit it, rock bottom. Without true reform, and the removal of the influence of the conservative right Labor is lost.

To address the anomaly of a Senator being elected on a small fraction of primary votes due to mathematical vagaries of preference distribution from a large field of candidates... my preference would be:

Each voter casts 12 'primary' votes. This being one each for the number of state-based vacancies.
All these 'primary' votes are totalled.
The 12 candidates with the highest aggregate vote totals are elected.

some people may not be aware that there is a joint party committee that considers electoral matters.

Of course it is dominated by the two major parties and that is why the decisions always favour the major parties. e.g. we have compulsory preferential voting because it favours the major parties.

The issue of minor parties colluding on preferences has only come about in recent times because the major parties colluded to put One Nation last on their HTVs. One nation frightened the majors and threatened their power. So what goes round - comes round.

Belly wants to do away with the Senate and also minor parties. However we have to have the opportunity for new parties to emerge. In recent time they have made it more difficult to form a political party, by increasing the number of members required. Nothing I know of is born fully grown and some competition would not hurt the major parties. Who is to say we should only have two major parties?

I am in favour of optional preferences, I see no reason or logic behind preferences continuing into perpetuity. With the vast number of choices below the line and the huge risk of a slight slip invalidating your vote, more that 97% simply voted above the line.

The choice should be to vote above the line and grant your vote and preferences to your party, or vote below the line and allocate your preferences to 1, 2, ..., or all the parties. Saying that you want your preferences to go to a few parties and then expire is as valid a choice as any other.

Dear Belly,

The Greens didn't contaminate Labor. Greens forced Labor to have a greater concern for the environment and made things better than Labor would have been without the Greens. Rudd contaminated Labor. He was a one man band who didn't consult his advisers. In advocating a free enterprise zone for the NT he was in the tradition of capitalist exploitation. In bringing chaplains into the public schools he broke down the separation of church and state. Gillard was a much better PM, but Rudd was more popular so Labor exchanged competence for popularity. They deserved to lose.

Not having to fill in all the numbers would improve the senate ballot. A requirement that a party must have a candidate in at least one electoral district before that party could be on the senate ballot would also be an improvement.

warmair:
1 I should know where my vote is likely to end up
2 Any one should be able to stand for election.
3 The ballot paper must be relatively simple.

I agree. This is a must.

Yuyutsu: The number of preferences must not be limited so long as the preferences are made by the voter, rather than by a party.

I agree. This is a must.

I have three suggestions;
Firstly. No major party is to have a seat in the Senate.
Secondly. Any Political affiliation would have to be declared before applying to be a senator.
Thirdly. Number all the boxes above the line with the candidates for that Group listed below the line.

The two major parties have dominated the Political System for too long. They have stymied progress & made our Governments a joke. The notions held by the two major parties are; you wouldn’t let us have that so we won’t let you have it & if you get something passed it’ll look bad for us. Like two little girls fighting over the one dolly.

A system of Independent Senators would be able to look at Legislation on its own merit without interference. Provided, of course, they weren’t brought off by the major parties or big business, so safeguards would have to be put in place to counter that.

It occurs to me that before we settle upon a voting procedure, we should first determine the role of the Senate in the twentyfirst century.

The original intention was to protect the interests of each State, and the ballot designed accordingly. Is that still the objective, if so, is there any need to change the selection process. If it is not, and we feel the need for a review of legislation by an Upper House, then it is critical to determine what makes that body different to the Lower House.

Once we have a clear idea of why we actually need another bunch of freeloaders - sorry, gathering of responsible citizens - to act as a check-and-balance on the rampant, politics-are-everything House of Reps, then we might start pontificating on how they should get there.

Should the Senate be open at all to organized political parties? Should there be hoops (not just financial) through which individuals are required to jump through before landing on the ballot paper? Should there indeed be a limit to the number of participants, or should we instead adopt a free-for-all but with one vote only, winner takes all?

One thing you can guarantee though. Nobody will actually consider asking us. After all, who are we to question the likes of them, the self-branded political elite?

Dear Pericles,

<<One thing you can guarantee though. Nobody will actually consider asking us. After all, who are we to question the likes of them, the self-branded political elite?>>

Exactly!

There was a loophole in the system and some real people managed, unintentionally of course by the founders of this 'nation', to sneak into the senate by preferencing each other. The dinosaurs didn't see that loophole before, they never considered the possibility of people daring to break their divide-and-conquer tactics, so now they are determined to close it down so that they are never interrupted again in their perpetual rule over us, contemptible mortals.

Didn't Queensland delete their upper house back aways ?
Our current senate is dysfunctional, would deleting it really make a lot of difference in the long term?
SD

Dear Shaggy Dog,,

<<Our current senate is dysfunctional, would deleting it really make a lot of difference in the long term?>>

'Dysfunctional' is always relative to a function.
It may well be that you do not agree with the upper-house's function and assume it should have a different function, in which case you would indeed find it dysfunctional.

As I see it, the function of the upper house is to slow down the tyrannical madmen from the lower house.

As for the lower house, if you believe that its function is to oppress us, ordinary people and make our lives bitter and miserable, then you may rightly claim that it is functional.

Otherwise, I wouldn't mind deleting the upper-house - provided that the lower-house is deleted first!

Yuyutsu,
A rhetorical question is what it was.
The senate is supposedly the states house but does not work that way at all.
Based on the original intent why have it if it is not carrying out the task it was established for.
Personally I think we need an upper house but the premiss of its existence would need to be different from that of days of long ago.
Leave the machinations of the lower house to those who frequent the chamber but the upper house should be beyond reproach and a major overhaul is needed to achieve a modicum of virtue from the esteemed members who sit therein.
Take it easy.

SD

Why do we bother, if no-one of importance is 'ever' going to take any notice of we 'contemptible mortals'?

Well, maybe by exchanging our views 'we' may achieve a better understanding of the options (and the reasoning behind these) so that, if we are ever given a choice in the matter (or in any other matter of import) we may be in a better position to exercise a 'considered' opinion, or choice.
That is reason enough for me to participate - as it is expanding my understanding and my awareness, just in case anyone should ever ask; and because I am already a part of the 'system', it is in my interest to make myself aware, even my responsibility, as a voter, to do so.

Wm,

That looks like 'first past the post' to me, and, are you suggesting 12 '1's' (which would be giving everyone more than 1 'genuine' first-choice vote, thereby creating a terrible mess), or numbered 1 to 12; but, 'above' or 'below' the line?
(This is still looking like at least a partial 'preferential' voting system).
And, given that there may be 150 candidates listed (below the line), and possibly with more than 12 candidates listed under any single above-the-line 'grouping', your proposal could only work if these votes were cast 1 to 12 below the line - and would still be partial preferential.
(Also, it is likely that 12 candidates would only ever need to be elected in any State after a double dissolution.)

Still, 12 below the line is a lot better than 150, but is 12 sufficient, or 24, or 'Z'?

The present system provides:
A '1' above the line goes to the first candidate in that 'grouping';
Given sufficient '1's', a portion of those first preferences go to the second candidate in that grouping; and so forth - such that any single grouping may end up with more than one candidate being elected.
First preferences (ie the initial vote) may only be 'allocated' once - so, those attributed to the first candidate 'elected' by that vote cannot be further 'distributed'; they stop with that candidate, with only any superfluous first preferences (those not needed to get the first candidate 'over the line') being passed on to the second candidate in that grouping - or moved on to the grouping to which the initial group (or Party) has 'allocated' its (superfluous) preferences.

With 6 to be elected, 17% of first preferences will get a candidate over the line (elected), and will stop 'dead' with that candidate.
But, the Commission does not 'eliminate' the bottom-runners. Instead, computerisation has enabled every single also-ran to remain in contention until the last preference has been 'distributed'.
No other 'competition' works this way - why this one?

The unlimited distribution of preferences leads to 'million-to-one' candidates getting up.
If you want a 'dog's breakfast' in the Senate, then stick with unlimited preference distribution.
If we want sanity, then preferences should be passed down the line NO MORE THAN three or four times - IMO. (And, with 'bottom runners' eliminated from contention at each 'count'.)

Another possible alternative would be voting 1 to X above the line ('X' being the number of Senators to be elected on that ballot), with the 2, 3, 4 etc indicating your choice for the 'distribution of preferences'. (You choose, not the group or Party.) But, given the potential variation of choices which could be registered against each '1' vote, I no longer think this would be workable. (As, whose second preference to distribute first? The one who chose Party Z, or the one who chose Party B?)

David f, 'hoops' don't apply to the House, so why to the Senate?

"The mainstream media wouldn’t give the aspiring Senators five seconds of attention last week when voters were looking for information, but tonight, they get five minutes of prime time and are fast becoming household names. Meanwhile the media complain that the voters couldn’t know who they were voting for. Really? And whose fault is that?

In comparison, the ABC took longer than a day (more like a decade) to find some old taped antics of one Ms Julia Gillard (antics now being investigated by police).

Who else suspects that if the new micro-party senators had views more in line with the commentariat, the commentariat would be chortling and purring about the genius of our democracy and its preferential system?

While wealthy inner city journalists wail that the micro parties are gaming the system, the truth is that micro parties and start ups don’t have a chance of getting mainstream attention or funds to run an election campaign, unless they happen to be a billionaire. Is it so bad they cluster into groups of parties that preference each other? If the media paid micro parties more attention before an election and gave them half a chance, the best ones would rise to the top quickly. Instead the media blackout creates a system where disaffected citizens are willing to take a calculated punt."
http://joannenova.com.au/

"That looks like 'first past the post' to me..."

That, Saltpetre, is because it sort of is. And I am sorry for adding confusion to a simple concept by enumerating 12 (as in a DD) instead of saying "the number of vacancies". So in a usual half-Senate election you are selecting your choice of a field of 6. It is still though a single 'vote', just not for a single candidate.

There is nothing preferential involved since there would be no redistributions.

Logistically, choice would be expressed by numbering 1 through 6 (12 in DD), making the mechanics the same as for the House of Representatives and, incidentally, the same in each state.

As normally only 6 'ticks' are required I would argue there is no need for 'above the line' options and that the ballot names would be in an AEC supervised random draw order.

Hope this helps.

Whilst this would prevent preference ploys it's probably no promise to promote politicians' perspicacity, performance, principles or prevent pandering. (Guess who that was for Pericles?)

Senate preferences should be limited to the number of Senators to be elected – normally six, or twelve after a double dissolution, and always two in the two mainland territories.
DIS

"What's wrong with the Senate's electoral system and how to fix it": - Antony Green.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-11/green-hand-the-power-of-preferences-back-to-the-people/4951020

If you want to stop these so called micro parties, which in reality are there for no other reason than to 'steal' preferences and direct them to 'someone' all that is needed is to tighten the rules. Firstly party registration should require 2000 members and the party should be registered a minimum 12 months before an election is due. Secondly following the vote, only for those that voted "above the line" if your party has not receiver 10% of a quota in first preference votes you are automatically eliminated and your vote is past to the party or independent you first preferenced with 10% of a quota. If 6 are to be elected then a 10% threshold would be 1.43%. This would stop a micro party like the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party with 0.5% of the first preference votes getting elected in Victoria. Soon see many micro parties disappear from the ballot paper.

I personally think that the purpose of the senate has long expired. There are same number of senators representing Tasmania as NSW or any of the other states. I reckon that as well as dealing with the ludicrous preferential voting system, that the following should be considered:

a The number of senators should represent the number of voters per state.
b The senate should have a limited ability to reject legislation i.e. block it twice, but let through a 3rd time.
c or require a 60% majority to block legislation.
d or simply be abolished.

SM, it was the conservative coalition which in 1975 set the "new rules" for the use of the Senate and how it can be used to bring down a democratically elected government. Not that I support any such action. For the big 2 the Senate is good and useful when it suits their political aims, but useless when it doesn't.
In the house of reps there is the coalition with about 45% of the vote and about 60% of the members, whilst the poor Greens with 8% of the vote only get 1 member, 8% should equal 12 members, don't you agree?
I support the Senate passing all legislation Abbott has a mandate for, even the $75,000 bonus for mega rich baby makers etc.

Paul,

% representation would give the greens 6 seats in the senate and the joker with 0.2% would not even feature.

The % representation in the main parliament has been a recipe for disaster, just look at Italy or even Japan with their revolving doors of government.

P.S. How is Cate Fireman doing?

Does someone want to explain to me what the problem with having Micro Parties in the Senate is?

SM, I suppose we'll just have to live with it, given Italy, Japan, etc. On the other hand the best form of government is a benign dictatorship, something akin to a cross between King Solomon and Mother Teresa, and before you say it, its not Tony Abbott.
My one and only disappointment with the whole election was the fact Cate Faehrmann missed a Senate spot in NSW and its gone to Rambo Dave from the DDT Party. Cate being such a competent and experienced politician, would have been a great asset to the outstanding Greens team in Canberra. When Cate stepped down from the NSW LC to contest the Senate I thought what would Sir Humphrey Appleby say "A courageous decision on your part Ms Faehrmann." giving up a plumb seat in the NSW LC for a 50/50 at best. As for Cate Fireman and her result, I don't give a toss, was she the Liberal candidate in the seat of Melbourne?.
When I think of no house of review, no upper house, no senate, I think of Campbell Newman and the suffering people of Queensland and say "how lucky we are to have a Senate in Canberra populated by Greens." I'm sure you will agree.

paul1405: "how lucky we are to have a Senate in Canberra populated by Greens." I'm sure you will agree.

NO WAY! Paul, you complain about Micro Parties. It wasn't long ago that the Greens were a Micro Party. Look at the problems they have caused for any Governments. The Greens Party is populated by people that have lost all touch with reality & they are having a bad influence on good Governance.

No one has explained to me what the problem is with having Micro Parties is. They represent people of Australia. They are not controlled by faceless men behind the scenes. Oh, is that what the problem is?

Paul 1405 is in all probability a good bloke.
But he is blinded to self interest.
We Australian vote for a host of reasons.
Some without the aid of reason.
Paul requires a old time Socialist/Communist country.
A thought that died about 20 years in to the last century, killing the very folk it was said owned the idea.
Pauls greens do resemble those naked Morris dancers my minds eye refuses to not see on mention of the word greens.
As Howard/Abbott stole One Nations policy,s, Palmer has stolen [why?] the greens basic plan.
Promise them any thing! know we will never have to give it!
Many of both party,s promises are more a threat than a promise in this case to mainstream Australia.
So dream on mate, but at some time confront the 3 point slip in your polling, face the truth, on both sides your party is watched with intent!
We the majority want with our every breath the end of greens representation in this country,s politics.

Belly,

"We the majority want with our every breath the end of greens representation in this country,s politics."

Judging by what Latham has to say here, Labor needs to straighten itself out before it criticises the machinations inherent in other parties.

http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/don_blame_rudd_gillard_for_labor_nhqNQOEiCsQVv4a6638SON

Piorot,
I do not agree with Latham or the other Labor leaders in blaming disunity for labors failure. Nor do I agree with Belly in his blaming of the Murdoch press. Labors failures were evident right from the start in 2007-8 with Rudd axing the Pacific solution, then the fiasco just continued with one failure after another. The disunity and the unfriendly press may have contributed, but were not the basic problem.
After years of defending, the AGE and the smh even gave up towards the end. It was mismanagement and incompetence that brought Labor undone.

However I do not think Labor will face up to their own shortcomings of the last 6 years and frankly I cannot think of any one scheme or program that could be labelled successful. Can You?

Both PMs were failures as was the whole parliamentary party. How they go about fixing that is a major problem that they now face. I suggest they take more care with candidate selection.

Banjo,

"I cannot think of any one scheme or program that could be labelled successful. Can You?"

Apart from the one which left the economy in good nick by world standards - post GFC...and AAA credit ratings coming out of our ears....nah, can't think of any....

: )

I'm gonna keep asking until I get an answer from the wonderful knowledgeable people on this Forum.

What is the problem with having Micro Parties? Please explain?

I've asked twice before & not received an answer. Does that mean that no one is knowledgeable enough to answer that simple question? It looks like it's all just noise again as usual.

It isn't knowledge you are tapping into here, Jayb, just opinions.

>>I'm gonna keep asking until I get an answer from the wonderful knowledgeable people on this Forum. What is the problem with having Micro Parties? Please explain?<<

There is of course absolutely nothing wrong, in my opinion, with the existence of Micro Parties. They are a necessary part of our right to hold a view, promulgate that view, and to ask people to support that view all the way through to Parliament.

What is under discussion here is whether they carry an impact on our political system way more substantial than the votes that have been sent their way. To give an individual with fewer than two thousand people voting for him (that's around a thousandth of one percent, give or take) the power to single-handedly impact the legislative process, makes a mockery of our entire sort-of-democratic system.

Nothing to do with Micro Parties themselves. Everything to do with allowing them undue influence over our lives.

'Apart from the one which left the economy in good nick by world standards - post GFC...and AAA credit ratings coming out of our ears....nah, can't think of any.. '

Yea Poirot amazing since the Greens/Labour did everything possible to waste every penny that they could. Thankfully it will only take a decade to recover rather than a century had they had another wasteful blitz of taxpayers money. They are big into generational theft leaving future generations to pay for the waste (not unlike Greece and much of Europe).

Belly, "Paul requires a old time Socialist/Communist country." Not so. In fact like America, Australia is very much in danger of becoming a one party state, in every way but name. Alas that one party may masquerade as two parties, but with no real discernible differences, nothing more than emphasis and degree that is, then the danger is real. A political duopoly with no agenda, no vision, both offering their version of "more of the same", never engaging in any real debate, and with 80% of the mostly affluent population in support, things run fairly smoothly, well, that is most of the time. Every few years we throw out one side and replace it with the other, and feel democracy has been served, as it was last Saturday.
However, there is a problem, political elements within the duopoly see real danger from political elements within the remaining 20%, the loose cannons so to speak. They ridicule, malign and generally attack these minorities, often painting them as being some way demented. With the failure to silence these minorities which agitate for meaningful political change, often peacefully and through the existing political system, the duopoly seek to politically silence them through disfranchisement. With their 80% support the duopoly feel "good" government is best served if they should hold 100% of the representation, which will take care of unwanted dissenting policies, views and opinions.

I see where you are coming from peri, but would the people in the Micro Parties be the voice of the people who are normally drowned out by people in Major parties with other agendas. I guess we'll find out when thing get under way.

I see the Senators of Major Parties as being obstructionist if they are not "IN". Maybe this can put a stop to that practice. I'm looking on the bright side here.

I see my idea of marking every box on top of the line with a number as a way of guaranteeing an Independent Senate free from obstructionist Major Party influence, that's all. I suppose that wouldn't suit everybody here as there are signs of sour grapes everywhere when "Their" Party isn't "IN."

Jayb,

I don't think anyone should have a problem with any micro party, or parties, as long as it/they are legitimate - meaning they have, and promulgate, sound policies representing a sound basis for seeking election/support; and sound representatives - meaning people genuinely committed to the political process, and genuinely capable of representing their party's policies, vision and constitution.

The problem arises when any of the above provisos are not evident, and, more importantly, when any candidate (micro or mainstream) is elected 'by default' - meaning through rorting or chance-operation of 'loopholes' in the electoral process (such as has been evident in various upper house elections).
The electoral process is not supposed to be a 'lottery'.
Those elected should represent the true majority view of the constituency; and not a 'freak' outcome of a flawed preference distribution process.

'We', the people, get annoyed when some fruitcake, with virtually no political expertise (or even any real interest) enters the race just for fun, or with nothing better to do (or to afford by-chance support to some other fruitcake lobby) (ie to 'rort' loopholes in the system) and ends up getting elected - to a position of real responsibility to an electorate whom they don't really represent.
Anyone who achieves a miniscule portion of first preference votes in any election does not deserve to be elected, period.

Paul,
The Greens might do better if they were renamed the 'National Greens' (to be more 'catchy' on the ballot), and focused more on sustainability and quality of life issues - conservative immigration, conservative foreign investment, conservative trade relations, conservative defense relations, and balanced, science-based resource conservation. (And got out of social 'engineering' areas like marriage equality and boat people.)

What are your thoughts on a House of Review where representatives from each State are elected from within the Industry and Services on a percentage of persons involved of more than say representing 150,000 members; i.e. transport, mining, pensioners, retail, agriculture, education, etc, etc, etc. The reason to have a voice on how proposed legislation will affect them.

Paul,
What hypocrisy!

On the other thread you were calling other minor parties fruitcakes and now you are complaining that the 2 major parties collude against the minor parties.

I recall quite well all the nutty policies of the greens, like making all drugs legal, lowering the age of consent and teaching the population 'passive resistance' to prevent an invasion and doing away with the defence forces.

I also recall the Greens colluding with the major parties to put One Nation last on the HTVs. You want to be able to deride other minor parties but don't like it when the majors point out your wacky policies.

Banjo; "making all drugs legal, lowering the age of consent and teaching the population 'passive resistance' to prevent an invasion and doing away with the defence forces." Rubbish, misinformation peddled by arch conservatives such as yourself to discredit The Greens. Please point to a link on Greens policy which alludes to such rubbish.
I did refer to Dave from the LDP as a fruit cake, based on his inability to answer a simple question on policy and his delusional nonsense on guns, I also said I could agree with some things he supports.
"I also recall the Greens colluding with the major parties to put One Nation last on the HTVs." You recall, were you privy to some clandestine meetings? I hardly think The Greens would contemplate placing One Nation very high on the preference list, and the Liberals seen One Nation as a possible danger to their support base.

Paul 1405: Rubbish, misinformation peddled by arch conservatives such as yourself to discredit The Greens.

Too close to the forest to see the trees?

I'm afraid Banjo is right Paul. You must be a young fella. I remember it well also. When they Greens first started up they were all for legalizing Drugs, lowering the age of consent. I think that was because a couple of their Gay (homo) members got caught with young boys. If I remember correctly. Long time ago. They had rallys supporting Drug Houses & free needles at Nimbin. I was there. The reason you can't reduce the fire hazard around your home is because of the Greens. Now people are being burned alive because of those Policies. They are still full of nut cases (Hanson-Young for one) & supported by some very strange people. Doo Do, Doo Do. Some of them I've met even wear tin foil hats as well, I'm sure.

Jay B,
I think if you read the greens policies today you will recognise the same policies as years ago.

But they now couch the policies in an abstract form, so they can mean whatever the reader wants them to mean. I have often wondered how one stops an invasive force by 'passive resistance'

Saltpetre's suggestions have merit but cannot see it happening because the greens are extreme left before conservation and environment.

Josephus,

Such groups can form minor parties of their own, but I think most tend to rely on their Unions to represent their interests, via Labor affiliation - and hence vote Labor.
Have they been misguided, or have their interests been sufficiently well represented?
Only they could answer this.

Interestingly, as Shadow Minister points out, each State elects an equal number of Senators, irrespective of population.
Being, 12 in total for each State, and 2 in total for each Territory. (Making 76 in all.)
This is obviously not 'proportional' representation (in terms of population), I assume originating from a 'State Representation' view of the role of the Senate - whereas I see the primary purpose of the Senate to be a genuine house of review, with such review being on an overall national interest, rather than a State interest basis.

I think it may be time for a change - since the Reps each represent (and are elected by) approximately an equal portion of the total Oz populace.
Why approximating proportional representation in the 'House' but not in the Senate? Eludes me, and just seems out of kilter.

If the Senate is supposed to be a "House of Review" why is it that the Governing Party wants, "control of the Senate?"

If the Governing Party has "control of the Senate" then the Senate is just a rubber stamp & the Government of the time can put through any sort of crap it wants too, without Review. Just going through the motions. That's how we end up in a mess. Good Bills get rejected because, of petty jalousies between Parties & bad Bill get passed because of too much control. I don't know if that's clear or not. I just hope you get what I'm trying to say here.

A good number of Independents & Independent Parties could force a Bill to be reviewed properly & the Governing Party would be careful of what crap it dealt up to be Reviewed.

Banjo, when can I expect your link to crazy green policy as you said
"making all drugs legal, lowering the age of consent and teaching the population 'passive resistance' to prevent an invasion and doing away with the defence forces." Are you the hypocrite who bagged Belly for not answering your questions and now you retreat to this line.
"But they (Greens) now couch the policies in an abstract form, so they can mean whatever the reader wants them to mean."
Dave is not the only one with loony policy, your man Abbott intends to send Australia bankrupt, spending $175 billion buying old fishing boats from Indonesia, the last $75,000 in the kitty will be kept in case Gina Rinehart gets pregnant.

"I'm afraid Banjo is right Paul. You must be a young fella" wrong on that one Jayb. "They had rallys supporting Drug Houses & free needles at Nimbin. I (Jayb) was there." Were you in the drug house using the free needle? Unfortunately drugs can cloud your memory, were you a flower child, Jayb have you thought of seeking professional help? Its not too late you know.

p1405: " Were you in the drug house using the free needle?

No, but I saw them being handed out, outside the Ganja shop. I saw the Greens Banners in the Parade.

p1405: unfortunately drugs can cloud your memory,

yep! I saw that, that day.

p1405: were you a flower child,

Yes, I was.

p1405: Jayb have you thought of seeking professional help?

Been there, done that.

p1405: Its not too late you know.

It' never too late.

You sound a little miffed Paul. Is there a reason for that? ;-)

>>Banjo, when can I expect your link to crazy green policy as you said
"making all drugs legal, lowering the age of consent and teaching the population 'passive resistance' to prevent an invasion and doing away with the defence forces."<<

You can't. I prefer my debate with facts instead of ratbag tory ranting so I had a look at the Greens policy page:

http://www.greens.org.au/policy-platform

There isn't anything there about legalising all drugs, lowering the age of consent, passive resistance or abolishing the defence force. There are a number of genuine, non-imaginary policies which are crazy: lowering the voting age to 16 (kids are idiots, why would you give them the vote?); opposing GM crops (irrational, knee-jerk response based on fear not good science); eliminating homelessness by 2020 (every homeless person off the street and no new ones within 7 years? Fat frigging chance); opposing uranium mining and nuclear power (irrational, knee-jerk response based on fear not good science).

I am curious as to what sort of person feels it is necessary to invent fictitious policies for the Greens and then attack the imaginary policies instead of attacking all the unreasonable policies they really do have.

Cheers,

Tony

Jayb,
I agree with you about making the Senate a proper house of review. The government wants 'control' of the Senate so it does not have to negotiate the bills through the Senate. But as I said earlier, the major parties control the electoral committee, so what benefits them will come into force.

Paul,
"Are you the hypocrite who bagged Belly for not answering your questions and now you retreat to this line". I don't believe I have ever bagged Belly for not answering a question.

"your man Abbott intends to send Australia bankrupt....." I don't have a man Abbott, in fact I have never praised him. shows your wacky assumptions!

I don't intend to read through the greens policies again, past or present. The policies I referred to have been validated by another poster whom I do not know, so that is quite sufficient. 'Passive resistance' Can you tell me how many bodies does an invading tank have to run over before it loses traction? You talk about other parties being fruitcakes!

Tony L: There isn't anything there about legalising all drugs, lowering the age of consent, passive resistance or abolishing the defence force.

Not now, I notice, but it wasn't long ago that the Greens ran on a platform of decriminalizing all Drugs. I suppose if it's no longer a crime to possess drugs than you lower the amount of people going to jail. I guess they have become Politically Smart in the way they market their Policies.

However, to back that up. On the Greens Site: Illicit Drugs;

8.The Australian Greens do not support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs.
9.There should be greater funding for demand and harm reduction.
10.The individual use of illegal drugs should not fall within the criminal framework.

Notice the wording,
"currently illegal drugs" Code for The Greens want to decriminalize all drugs.
"Greater funding fro D & H reduction. Code for "Free Drugs, needles & Drug Hospitals."
"Individual use" Code for decriminalization of all personal drugs.

Thereby reducing crime. Schrimple!

Tony L: I am curious as to what sort of person feels it is necessary to invent fictitious policies for the Greens and then attack the imaginary policies instead of attacking all the unreasonable policies they really do have.

I guess it how deeply you look into & behind the Policies, isn't it. ;-) The old Policies are still there, just buried behind Politically Correct Speak Gobble de-Gook.

Now you & Paul go & put your tinfoil hats on & hide in the corner because Big Brother is watching your every move, but not under the Smoke detector because that full of Plutonium.

Paul,

TA only flagged spending 20m on buying boats not billions. This is why most Australians think the greens are air heads.

SM, Oh yes 700,000 boats at a modest $25K each equals. $175 billion. If Gina has triplets does she get $225,000? Can my Grandma get $975,000 back dated, she had 13 kids.
Banjo, now you (Paul1405) retreat to this line". "I don't believe I (Paul1405) have ever bagged Belly for not answering a question." I have bagged Belly many a time for not answering questions. Please point to where I posted THAT line, you are making it up, just as you make up Greens policy. Point to the line and point to the policy.
Tony, thanks for that post, don't expect anything from Banjo as he simply makes it up to suit or maybe he gets his "facts" from his read of Murdocks fish wrapper The Daily Telegraph, they publish lies and nonsense about the Greens, whenever they can, the gullible will believe anything they are told, when its what they want to hear.
Jayb, where do you get your "code" from, Archy Pell? Making up nonsense.
"You sound a little miffed Paul. Is there a reason for that?" No Jayb I'm not miffed at all.

paul1405: Jayb, where do you get your "code" from, Archy Pell? Making up nonsense.

Unfortunately it's not nonsense, dear Paul & Tony. Are you saying that the Greens don't want to decriminalize drugs to reduce the crime figures? You must be Very Young. The Greens have run on that platform for the last 30 years. Now the rhetoric has been toned down, that's all.

30 years ago we all knew what the “Green” in the Greens was for. They wore a big Green Cannabis Leaf was on their yellow T-shirts during the demonstrations. Even 10 years ago they wore them at the violent demonstrations at Keith Williams Resort near Cardwell. I was there, fishing. But that's before your time I suppose, young fellas.

Once again, FROM THE GREENS OWN SITE: Their Policy on Illicit Drugs; Cut & Paste.

8. The Australian Greens do not support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs.

Notice, "currently" Lie. Yes they do. The Greens have been Lobbying to get all drugs made legal for the last 30 years. They even had violent demonstrations over that point.

9. There should be greater funding for demand and harm reduction.

Notice, greater funding means Free Aid for drug addicts.

10. The individual use of illegal drugs should not fall within the criminal framework.

And there you have it.
First stage, "Legalize drugs for individual use."
Second stage, "Make all drugs legal eventually thereby they don't fall within the criminal framework.

It's not that hard. Just take of the tinfoil hat & the rose coloured glasses & read the small print. Shhishh!

paul1405: You must be a young fella" wrong on that one Jayb.

Oh, Ok. I guess you know about drugs clouding the mind. They've made you forget, either that or, old age can make you forgetful too. :-)

>>8.The Australian Greens do not support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs.<<

>>Notice the wording,
"currently illegal drugs" Code for The Greens want to decriminalize all drugs.<<

Yes of course Jay. The Greens publish their policy documents in code that only tory ratbags can accurately decipher. If you read between the lines of their quite explicit policy you can obviously see that when the Greens say they 'do not support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs' what they really mean is they 'do support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs'. That 'not' is just tricky wording and spin. Good thing we've got these rabid tories around to sort the truth from the bullsh!t.

Cheers,

Tony

Jay I got this from the LDP web site;

"The LDP supports the legalisation of use, cultivation, processing, possession, transport and sale of cannabis."

Can you please decipher their cannabis policy for me I'm not sure if they support the legalisation of use, cultivation, processing, possession, transport and sale of cannabis or if they are opposed to the legalisation of use, cultivation, processing, possession, transport and sale of cannabis, their policy is very unclear. Do they say what they mean or mean what they say, there must be a "code" there somewhere for you to crack! I hate ambiguous policy, never saying what they mean. LOL

paul1405: "The LDP supports the legalisation of use, cultivation, processing, possession, transport and sale of cannabis."

My best guess is that "The LDP supports the legalisation of use, cultivation, processing, possession, transport and sale of cannabis."

No fine print there. I guess they'll get on well with the Greens.

When it comes to ambiguity, I'm with you. So you don't like any of the Political Parties either. They all seem to thrive on it so they can say, "Oh! We didn't lie, you just misunderstood."

With ordinary people in the Senate maybe they can say to the Major Parties, "Please explain." The Senate could do with a bit of Hansonism to make Government work better.

A bit of forced, "Say what you mean & mean what you say," would be a bit od a shock for any Government.

I write to the pollies all the time & as I tell them, "If the reply is longer than a single paragraph they are lying." Most of the replies I get back are usually a full page, some times two full pages. I précis it & send it back with the Gobble de-Gook outlined in red. I guess they hate me, or at least their minders do.

Jay, just because I am a member of The Greens does not mean I support party policy per se. Naturally I would not hold party membership if I did not substantially support policy, but there are areas of policy I disagree with, particularly in the areas of drug liberalisation and abortion. No party or individual has a monopoly on "good" policy, or "bad" for that matter.
It would be interesting to know how many of those that voted for the LDP would know of, or agree with, their "cannabis" policy, or understand the implications of their tax policy. etc. Minor parties are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to the ability to articulate policy. As the vast majority get party policy from the "6 o'clock news" which is almost entirely restricted to the big 2. Very little of what goes to air is policy, its more personality and intrigue, which makes for good ratings but adds little to the political debate.

paul1405: (abridged) I do not support any parties policies per se. Naturally I would hold party membership if I did substantially support their policies, but there are areas of all parties policies I disagree with, particularly in the areas of drug liberalisation & boat people. No party or individual has a monopoly on "good" policy, or "bad" for that matter.

Minor parties are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to the ability to articulate policy as the Greens have learnt over the years. As the vast majority get party policy from the "6 o'clock news" which is almost entirely restricted to the big 2. Very little of what goes to air is policy, its more personality and intrigue, which makes for good ratings but adds little to the political debate.

Back atcha.

"The LDP supports the legalisation of use, cultivation, processing, possession, transport and sale of cannabis."

Poor wording indeed. The correct word should be 'decriminalise'.

I find the whole idea of drugs disgusting, but criminalisation is the one factor contributing the most towards their use. It provides financial incentives for criminals to push drugs and it convinces youngsters that drugs, which would have otherwise been no-big-deal, are cool and a status-symbol. Without the halo of 'criminal', all that's left is a very stupid choice.

The "war on drugs" was officially declared in 1971 and effectively decades earlier. Did it do anything? Nay, it achieved the opposite.

The war on drugs costs us, ordinary good citizens enormously, by:

1. Increasing the prevalence of drugs.
2. Financially, making tax-payers pay for policing, prosecuting and jailing of druggies.
3. Holding up a large portion of police-resources in fighting drugs, thus lowering their ability to provide the community with personal security.
4. Surveillance, questioning, searching and even arresting innocent people on suspicion of drug-involvement, who in fact got nothing to do with drugs.

I understand that the LDP calls for stopping the war on drugs - and so should anyone who dislikes drugs.
Do the Greens have the courage to state the same?

Do we want to fix the Senate, or to 'fix' the Senate?

Major Party control of the Senate can have two results:
1. Automatic passage of legislation if the same Party has a majority in both 'houses', or
2. Automatic blocking (or severe amendment) of any/all legislation, when the opposing Party has control of the Senate.

Neither is optimal; the 'minors' have a role, both in the Reps and in the Senate, in a 'review' or balanced national interest 'capacity'.

The essential prerequisite is of course to have 'minors' members who genuinely represent a substantial constituency and a policy platform which is genuinely supported by that (or a 'broad') constituency.
It would also help if they were the product of a responsible pre-selection process, and held a genuine interest in, and capacity to participate effectively in, the political process (meaning in the processes of government, and not just in the 'election' process).

But, how to ensure (or to guarantee/mandate) such 'qualifications'? Or, would such a 'mandate' be considered Orwellian?

We have considered the tightening-up of registrations and deposits, and the implementation of ballot and voting process 'reforms'.
But, we don't wish to entirely eliminate the minors - and so hand either of the majors a lay-down 'Misere' in either house, let alone in both houses - for this would almost certainly induce a bulk of the populace to vote for one major in the Reps, and the other, opposing major, in the Senate. (Stalemate.)

Much as I think a more effective, and restrictive, registration process is required for Senate candidacy, I also believe the more effective and virtually essential reforms needed are in the format of the ballot paper itself, the voting procedure to ensure a valid vote without having to sequentially-number a huge number of boxes, and a limitation placed on preference distribution.
Of these latter, I consider a limitation on the passing-down of preferences to be the most significant reform.