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.