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.