"Wouldn't South Australian NXT senators who be fulfilling their duty by lobbying for their state as hard as they can?"

Yes, by fighting to amend legislation negatively affecting SA. Of course, there is the realpolitik of how Senators wield power versus what is ethical at times.

I was really referring to NXT's lower house rep(s). It's their role, of course, to spruick their state's interests in forming legislation. However, in a kingmaker role they can wring a sweet deal for SA over others (such as shifting naval shipbuilding from WA, for example, or squeezing extra funds from the rest of Oz for their pet industries). A major party rep can't do this.

In this close run race the electorate sees NXT already maneuvering and thinks of shifting from the majors to parochial candidates next election. Of course, if that election isn't close the strategy will not be effective, but it does look like the days of clear governing majorities is behind us, with more voting in self rather than in national interest (debt reduction being the example in this election, IMHO)

If it ends up 76 75 then a speaker has to be provided.
If the XNT can provide the speaker then the 76 can govern.
It will take some statesmanship for the NXT to surrender one of their wins.

Anyway because of the policies as promulgated by both parties it does
not matter who wins, we are committed to an economic disaster as the
debt will now never be paid off.
The US's $T20 debt will not now be paid either so a really big
collapse is inevitable.

Dear Luciferase,

Just to articulate further;

“The framers of the Constitution intended that the primary role of the Senate would be to protect the interests of the less populous states in the federal Parliament by giving equal representation to all states (see Senate Brief No. 9). As was foreseen by some of the framers, soon after federation parliamentarians began to vote as members of political parties rather than as representatives of states. While this has obscured the role of the Senate as a protector of the less populous states, the state-based system of representation has ensured that legislative decisions are not made only by the representatives of the more populous states. The Senate has also assumed greater importance as a check on the power of the government of the day. The framers’ design of the Senate has enabled it to perform this role effectively.”
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief10

SA is one of those less populous states. The original framers saw the major role of the Senate was to protect such a state. From where I sit I see the NXT are playing their part. I'm struggling to see anything unethical in their actions, indeed I would contend they are filling the role as envisaged by the Federating fathers. There of course will be times when the interests of SA does not align with the interests of the Australian population as a whole but then I suspect the traffic is mainly the other way.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/31991412/wa-a-149b-loser-in-tax-rip-off-as-sa-asks-for-more-federal-cash/

Which ever way you look at it, WA is the big loser in politics and is basically treated as a milking cow by the East. That is not about democracy, but about tyranny of the Eastern majority.

Dear Yabby,

So when WA was living off largess of the Eastern States, including the proceeds from the Bass Strait oil and gas fields in the 60's and 70's, to the tune of $30,000 per person per annum it was somehow deemed fair and reasonable. Now apparently the rules stink and WA wants them changed to give it more? How does that work and still be fair?

Again, my reference was to the House of Reps.

However, conservative senators blocking supply was unethical in '75, IMO. Green senators blocking the Malaysian Solution, which had nothing to do with state interests, was unethical IMO.

When a Gov't lies thru' its gills to get elected, a la Abbott's outfit, the Senate's action in the last parliament was ethical.

The realpolitik of the Senate differs from its stated purpose. The Senate ethic is essentially ignored, as Paul Keating noted, with his "unrepresentative swill" comment.