Do we think the Senate is or ever was the states house we are told it is?have recent reforms stopped micro party's one issue party's, or small party's getting elected? do we want minority's to blackmail governments?two party get if not eighty percent of the vote very near it, is it Democratic for those sharing the other 20 percent to over rule or hold up a government? Queensland did not die when it got rid of its upper house, we need not forever use the Westminster system if it rusts,my view is not Senate or at least a reduced numbers one, full election three year terms in lock step with the lower house

Preferably get rid of both houses, but if only one house is to be eliminated, then better get rid of the lower house.

In other words, have proportional representation, then indeed there will no longer be a need for a senate. At present, the senate is the only place where ordinary people have a little bit of a say.

Yes, so long as there are governments, minorities should be able to limit the damage that governments do.

My arguement has always been that I get 5 chances every 4 years to have a say who gets to hold the reins of power in this country. 1 Council, 2 State and 2 Federal.

i don't think it is a mistake that Australians like to keep that power split. They tend to vote a different party into their state government than the one at a Federal level. They also rarely give any party total control over both houses, upper and lower.

If you want a different system you need to explain how my voting rights will not be effected and if that system still allows review of legislation by a separate body. If you can't then find another mug because this one ain't buying what you are selling.

Senators merely go along with their parties or, in the case of crossbenchers, do deals with governments to get minority, often crackpot, changes for themselves and few weirdos who voted for them. Greens are the main offenders. On the other hand, it's a way for minority interests to enter the game.

No matter what, the senate is not going to be reformed or abolished by a dud political class, so get over it.

Well do we value the rights of the majority? or do we talk of the right to minority to both be represented and even over rule the majority? today's headlines tell of the one nation chook pen again seeing one jump the fence? what of those who voted for him? first halve the number of Senators, then three year terms, that way incoming governments have every chance of holding both houses, if they fail they will be punished next time can ANY government bring about true reform with our current Senates make up? I think not

//Do we rid our selves of the Senate or reform it?//

Both would require a referendum: good luck getting it passed. Referendums usually fail.

Looks like you might just have to learn to be thankful for the Senate, which I daresay is the envy of less democratic countries the world over.

The Senate is an anachronism where 500k people in Tasmania have the same say as 8m people in NSW. The best compromise I can offer is to follow the model that the house of lords uses in the UK where the Senate can veto a bill twice, but the third time it passes.

Dear Belly,

We need to have a debate on a second chamber that
better meets the wishes of the voters. Therefore
we need not to get rid of the Senate but reform it.

The Australian voters should get a Senate which is
not in the iron grip of party control and which
genuinely reviews legislation rather than either
simply rubber stamping it or rejecting it - based on
the political make up of the other house.

We need a Senate which attracts the best and the
brightest.

Yuytsu I am always going to find you requirements for government confronting,but in truth think we have more chance of a Dictatorship than what you want, do we need a referendum? did not have one with the last FAILED changes,the two party preferred ones have self interest in reform surely? how many got elected to that circus of a house then switched sides? is that fair to voters? do we want Greens or One Nation being able to stall any government my view remains Democracy is not served by our lost world senate

Toni,

"Both would require a referendum: good luck getting it passed. Referendums usually fail."

You should know by now that Referendums never fail

What about the shonks not entitled to be in parliament by dint of their dual citizenship, who have spent almost a million dollars of OURS ($962,155) from October last year to March this year, despite the fact that they had no right to be in parliament at the time. This is spending is on top of their over-generous salaries and perks. They are still at it, but figures from April and May are not yet available.

These people are all of the Left, unsurprisingly.

They intend to stand again at the expensive by-elections their dishonesty has caused. We haven't even been assured that their messy citizenship problems have been sorted out yet.

The senate will never be abolished, but these people could have their snouts permanently removed from the trough - and be made to repay every cent they have ripped off us - if only we had a Prime Minister and government with backbones. No other people not members of the political class would be allowed to get away with what these shonks have done, let alone get the opportunity to stay on the gravy train. And nobody else would be so brazen as to continue these sharp practices while they were still under a cloud.

Dear Belly,

I do not believe in either dictatorship or democracy, but if you want democracy, then Australia doesn't have it: how many people can really say that the politicians from either of the two major parties truly represent their views and aspirations?

Australia's electoral system preserves the rule of the two major parties, with little differences between them - Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The [expensive] game of being allowed to choose between the two may provide a degree of comfort for those who do not wish to look the grim reality in the face.

I support neither the Greens nor One Nation, but I feel good when any of them, or anyone else for that matter, manages to [temporarily] obstruct and give a blow to the government's ego and image.

what did Keating say "unrepresentative swill . A small Minority with their personal agenda,
out for the best for themselves. Totally unrepresentative . Should be done away with post haste

We do need to ask -

"Does the Senate really fulfill its perceived roles
or does it exist as a place where political parties
can manipulate the membership and the voting to
satisfy their own objectives and to reward long
serving members with a comfortable retirement
occupation with little to do but turn up and vote as
they are told."

"It could be argued that the reasons to establish a
Senate are no longer valid even anachronistic."

"Arguments for abolishment could include that they are
irrelevant, undemocratic, hugely expensive, and
obstructive to the more democratically elected
House of Representatives which has to face the electorate
every three years ... or less."

Food for thought.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15935

How many elected in this term to our house of failure have left for another team? consider the current one nation giggle, and its past in this and the last Senate,I rest my case halve the numbers double the amount of votes needed and three year terms same day as the other house, call it Democracy at work, a third force in our politics, not yet in existence, may come, but unlike current minor party's it, to be a success, must take the middle path.

Actually I would like to hear why people think the place isn't working? I feel most Australians breathed a sign of relief that Abbott and Hockey didn't get their way.

I have always had a bit of time for Jackie Lamby even though I don't support most of her policies. I also had time for Ricky Muir who turn out to be a decent thinker. These guys would not have had a chance to get foot in the door though the normal pathway of preselection by the major parties.

If people are going to have a whinge about the Senate then they have to explain why. It is not good enough to quote Keating. He was cranky because he didn't have absolute power. I for one certainly don't like the idea of unchecked politicians of any stripe.

Keep in mind too that the two majors will often vote together shutting out the minor players.

The are people who think that the senate keeps the government in check because the ruling party rarely has control of both houses, but all it really does is frustrate much of the promised legislation that the government went to the election with; this has been witnessed after the last two elections where the the government was prevented from cutting spending to get debt down, just to mention one instance. Crazy people even vote for one party in the lower house, and another party or independent in the senate. They actually believe that is sensible!

Yuyutsu is correct, by the way. Australia is not a democracy and will not be until the people get a say in who is nominated to represent them. A primary vote along the lines of the American system would go quite a way more democratic results.

Weakening the power of the Senate means strengthening the ability of the government of the day to foist bad legislation on all of us. If anything, the senate should be strengthened - at least they tend to look at issues on their merits, which is more than can be said for the Lower House!

Generally the minor parties don't have much influence except on issues on which the major parties disagree. In practice a bit of horse trading does occur, but the more cross benchers from different groups there are, the less scope for that there is.

To those who complain about all states having equal representation, I ask: what would you do instead to prevent the needs of the people in the less populous states being ignored?

Okay, what if the upper house was party-free, that candidates had to get their own votes, no swinging votes over from one to another on a party ticket ? That each State elects twelve representatives (and territories two), okay, but the twelve (or two) with the most votes ?

And while we're at it, some more equitable distribution of representatives by the size of State (or territory) ? Not necessarily calculated on population alone, but maybe some sort of formula ? Maybe based on, say, a sliding scale - each State or territory with a population under a million getting six seats in an upper house, between one and four million, nine seats, any State with a population over four million - twelve seats ?

Hmmm ..... yes, that might give my home state, NSW, twelve seats, but it might also give Victoria twelve seats. Bugger. I'll have to work on it.

Joe

I'm with you Belly. We will never have good or successful government until the party who wins an election, gets to implement the policies it was elected on.

We need to stop the failed states, Tasmania & South Australia, from having such a strong input to national government. Surely stuffing their own state should be enough wrecking.

Hasbeen in this we are in lock step, just can not get my head around the chooks ruling over majority and yes government should be free to pass its bills

Dear Belly,

So you would have been happy to see Abbott and Hockey run riot? Fair enough, your opinion. Me? I care about the damage they were preparing to inflict with things like;

Raise the retirement age to 70.

Cap workers redundancy payments.

Introducing co-payments for bulk billing.

Taking our universities to a US model where fees were essentially unregulated making it more difficult for the less well off to contemplate a university education.

Gutting 500 million earmarked for helping the automotive industry transition after they had withdrawn support for motor vehicle manufacture in this country.

Slashing Legal Aid funding.

Bring in 'earn or learn' where unemployed people under 30 only got unemployment benefits for 6 months.

Charge pensioners for once free medications under the Pharmaceuticals Scheme.

All of these measures were directed at the less affluent in our society and I for one was bloody happy the senate pulled them up.

It seems you do not take that view.

Hasben's attitude shows exactly why SA and Tasmania need an equal senate presence to NSW and Victoria: otherwise we risk those in power deeming the states to be "failed" and trying to punish the residents for that, instead of looking at ways to help these states to succeed.

The false premise is the big two are somehow disadvantaged by the Senate voting system. At the 2016 Senate election together, the Coalition and Labor received 55% of the primary vote but hold 74% of the seats. Neither party received anywhere near majority support and the Government with 30 seats from 35% of the vote has to rely on minor parties and independents to get their Labor opposed legislation past. The fact is the majority of legislation does pass, without much problem, it is only the contentious rubbish that fails to receive majority support.

p/s Good to see the bigots of One Nation imploding once more. The forums Usual Suspects, mostly the hard right Queensland yokel brigade we have on here, they know who they are, are looking sillier than usual with the demise of the Lovely Pauline whom they so enthusiastically supported as the coming Messiah at the last election. Come on fellas, fess up, you've been had yet again, by the bimbo!

SteelRedux Paul, yes my views are confronting for you, never the less they remain my honest view REMEMBER Labor too has had its legs cut from under it by the house of lost soles,and will again,I can not justify minority's over ruling majority's any time, and believe me this Labor to the boot straps man,trusts the electorate enough to know dreadful policy in a world that has both houses elected at the same time, will see governments thrown out of office,One nation takes conservative votes but after the election votes with them Greens take Labor votes and SOME TIMES votes with Labor, the rest? who knows?

Belly, that is a rather conceited notion that the only rightful decision making as far as the nation is concerned should be confined to the members of the big two parties, and others should be excluded from any say in such matters. If the government has problems with its legislation passing its not due to the cross bench and Labor, its due to the governments failure to win majority support at the election.

The other irksome notion is that in someway minor parties etc steal the rightful votes of the big parties. Not so, no party, Labor or the Coalition included, has an inalienable right to votes. The big two parties problem is simple, the don't have sufficient popular support.

I quite like you Paul, once even handed out your how to votes with my own party's, you here use words to justify and rebut my view, but what if the minor party was the NAZI party? the extreme right or left, sorry your mob fill the last roll, see perfection never existed in any thing, it can not be found in our two party teams either, BUT how can the majority not have the right to say what they want from government?I firmly and forever think if any minor party had voters behind them they would not remain forever minor
Greens are a party of the dreamers from middle income back ground who dream of things others think are quite silly

Hi Belly, //what if the minor party was the NAZI party?// In a democracy the Nazi Party has as much right to exists as does any other party. Say I put it thus; What if the minor party was the Christian Democratic Party? Its a slippery slope when one starts banning this or that, simply because its not agreeable with your thinking.
What keeps extremists from government, is by not creating an extreme society in the first place, where radicalism thrives, and eventually things become so intolerable the radicals take over.

In my view, with the Liberal and Labor Parties being like parties in principle, and with only degree and emphasis being the only defining difference between the two. In a moderate society like Australia, one should expect the two similar moderate parties to command overwhelming majority support, in the 90% range in fact, with no more than 10% of voters dissatisfied with both. This is not the case with the base support for the big two, down around 75% and declining, that being surprising considering the electoral system favours them. The question is why is the two big parties moderacy failing so badly to resonate with voters. Giving rise to minor parties, along with one issue groups and individuals. How do you answer that.

Paul in another thread I just said this *taking away majority's rights to save the rights of minority's is quite silly* no party that ever existed, no government,could or did best serve every one,Democracy if it is not the best system is the best we have found so far,I again ask if small party's use our senate to wedge the big ones is that democratic? and why has this states house six year terms for some three for others? if it is the states house and it is not, why so many senators? why is it so hard for after winning the lower house, a government to win the senate? do voters want that? I have highlighted your party's behavior in the house of lost soles but why should any small party over rule so many voters?

Belly, the reality is not the case, //but why should any small party over rule so many voters// The Greens with nine Senators cannot overrule the government. In the end it is the opposition Labor Party that call the shots on opposing. All The Greens and others can do is side with one or the other.

Dear Belly,

You are right that democracy is not the best system.
The major flaw of democracies is that they allow the tyranny of majorities over minorities.

Majorities, if significant, get what they want every day, but minorities get nothing and can be persecuted. The Senate is one of the few places where this can be somewhat mitigated.

As a hypothetical example, suppose the majority dislikes avocados, so they legislate for avocados to become illegal. Now suppose for some, perhaps 5%, avocados are a very important part of their diet and they feel that they cannot do without it, so they form the minor avocado-party, elect it to the senate, then using horse-trading they can protect their vital interests.

As a more realistic example, suppose the government legislates to cancel all family-visits in prisons. Perhaps 96% of us know nobody who is imprisoned so we may not care, but for families of prisoners nothing is more important than seeing their loved ones, so they could form a party accordingly.

We cannot give up such an important feature because one day, you Belly, might find yourself on the receiving end of the stick for something that is most dear to you.

yuyutsu do you understand your posts suggests the very thing you complain about? are you not saying minority's, to prove we are fair, should rule over majority's?it remains my view we need not FOREVER use the Westminster system just because it was once the best,and no! not thinking of a house of Lords,a day will come, maybe has, when voters will weary of the sheer silliness of party switching senators and small, even unloved, party's over ruling elected government

Yuyutsu,

If democracy is not the best system, will you please reveal what the best system is. I'm sure you had an alternative worked out before you made that statement.

Dear Belly,

Minorities can never rule in a democracy, they simply don't have the numbers. What a senate gives minorities, is a bit of negotiating space that can at times protect their members from unpalatable decrees by majorities.

Now the senate as it stands is not the only way to provide these protections: two alternate ways are to introduce either proportional representation in the lower house, or direct representation, for example as in http://voteflux.org - if any of the two is adopted, then a senate is no longer required.

---

Dear Ttbn,

The best is to recognise the autonomy and dignity of each individual, holding high to the value that nobody has a right to rule over others without their consent.

Instead, everything is done by voluntary agreement of all affected, including the initial joining in a state/society. Government then just manages the common interests rather than rules over people.

Hi Yuyutsu,

My grand-dad was an Anarchist, a Wobbly. Anarchists believe that some magic, in the optimal conditions, can happen and -bing ! - everybody will suddenly get on with each other, and there will never again be disagreement in the land.

My study of revolutions, as a once-Marxist and Maoist [smart-arse computer says 'moist'], suggests that there are three sorts of people most seriously investing their lives in revolutions (which is what you might be advocating):

* the workers, those who welcome revolution and the abolition of property and exploitation, etc., and just want to contribute to the common good;

* the managers and planners who have to do there arduous task of putting their Utopian blueprint into practice, without the slightest change (at least, fr the first seek);

* and regrettably, given the pervasive presence of enemies of the people, the exterminators, the executioners, the torturers.

Of course, most Marxists and ex-Marxists start off in the first category, wanting to 'serve the people', but very quickly realise that the scene is infested with the maggots of the second two categories, the real rulers. Fortunately for those of us in non-communist countries, we can opt out, after perhaps decades of agonising over it all. Pity the poor bastards in former community countries and currently in China and North Korea.

Democracy is imperfect. Perhaps we all should get used to -shock, horror ! - an imperfect world, one which will be imperfect forever. But edging slowly, ever closer, to a moving target called perfection.

Of course, there should be protections for the opinions of minorities in democracies - majority-rule doesn't have to mean only-majority-rule, or some sort of winner-take-all.

Nothing is, or ever will be, perfect, although Usain Bolt and Serena Williams come close. But people like that are models, exemplars, for the rest of us fractious, argumentative, pig-ignorant lot.

Joe

SR,

You gave perfect examples of where an undemocratically elected senate blocked the policies of a democratically elected lower house, where the government of the day was trying unwind or compensate for some of the biggest and unbudgeted spending policies in Australian history by the previous government.

It was also the Senate that blocked Labor's first carbon tax that led to Rudd being knifed by Juliar, and if the coalition had wanted, it could have blocked just about any Rudd legislation.

Other than blocking legislation, the Senate has no real other purposes.

The options to reform the Senate would be:
1 To make the Senate seats proportional to the population of the state.
2 Give the Senate limited blocking power (say 1 year or 2 vetos per bill)
3 Abolish the Senate and refer some legislation to COAG for approval.
4 Abolish the Senate.

Three suits me fine Shadow Minister and yes while you see good in Labor being blocked on some things I see good in the opposite,still the right to govern once elected needs protection from the unrepresentative swill, heard that before some place

Dear Joe,

It may be technically correct to call me an "anarchist", but I don't invest my life in a revolution, nor does any of the 3 categories you mentioned fit me in the least.

All I am saying is so embarrassingly simple: nobody has a right to rule over and impose their rules on others without their consent - that is a form of violence and must not be accommodated. It does not matter how you call yourself and whom and how many others you associate yourself with, wrong is still wrong.

yuyutsu you have always confronted, not in a bad way, me, see I fail to understand just what type of world your wishes would give us, or how, even if enough wanted it, we would get there, maybe wrong but in the imperfect world we have I firmly think the majority's point of view should lead, never the minority

Dear Belly,

I have no objection that the majority's point of view should lead, but to be able to speak of majorities and minorities, there first has to be a defined group of people. All I am saying is, that participation in groups must be voluntary, that it is so wrong to tell people "you belong to this group" without their consent.

Once a group forms voluntarily, it means that the members have agreed on the ground rules for that group. If that's a democracy, then so be it, even if it's a monarchy or aristocracy then so be it because that's what the members wanted. Either way, when I voluntarily join a group, I check that its ground rules include protections for whatever is most dear to me, otherwise I won't join.

So if the group agreed on democracy (and the type of democracy), then of course the majority of that group will determine where the group as a whole goes, still what I may do in my private life as well as what I am free to not do, remains protected by way of the group's ground rules.

The way Australia is run is not terribly bad, but there is just this fundamental flaw: participation in the group called "Australia" is not voluntary. You ask me how we would get there: draft a new constitution such that 99.999% would like or at least find it agreeable, so they will subscribe to this constitution and to the group. While many aspects of the existing constitution need not change, guarantee of individual freedoms should be included, else people would not subscribe. This constitution should allow for the remaining 0.001% to live on their land without being subjected to Australia's laws or harassed unless they threaten members of the group. If they do threaten the group, then the group can obviously act in self-defence, but note the great difference between law-enforcement and self-defence: the former may only be exercised within the group while the latter may legitimately be exercised with anyone.

Consent? well I am quite willing to think voters give their consent by voting for a party, we can gauge that by the numbers such party's get,no we will not get perfection, from any side, but what system? other than our current one? is better?in the end my simple view that minority's have far too much power in the house we talk of seems proved

Dear Belly,

The consent for a party to rule can be seen as a mitigating factor, but cannot replace the original consent to belong to the group/nation/society which has the given parliamentary/party system. In other words people say: "Since I am trapped in this system anyway, I better elect the party that minimises my sufferings from it".

You ask: "but what system? other than our current one? is better?"

Well if you and others so prefer, then the system does not need to be significantly different than the current. Majorities could still dictate everything to do with the public sphere of life and the direction of the group/country/nation as a whole.

The only necessary differences are:

1) In order to obtain the people's consent, the constitution enshrines the freedom of individuals in their private life - that is to do as they please on their own property so long as it does not impinge on non-consenting members of society; and to not be required to do any acts against their will (i.e. the unalienable freedom to and non-criminalisation of staying in bed).

2) The group's jurisdiction is only over those and their lands who consent to be part of it. Those very few who are still unwilling to join the group/nation/society despite the promises in #1 and the good prospects that ensue, are not prevented from living on their land and are not subject to the group's laws (they may still be prevented from leaving their properties onto public land or require visa-like papers if allowed to, which binds them to the group's laws for the duration of their stay outside).

The government is only in for 3 years, if their policies are crap, then the voters will get rid of them and the new government will change them. That is what democracy is about.

What we have is governments being unable to implement the policies they promised the voters because the previous incumbents are blocking it.

The reason I gave two examples is to show that it is happening to both sides.

Dear SM,

«The government is only in for 3 years, if their policies are crap, then the voters will get rid of them and the new government will change them.»

Yes, but 3 years is more than enough to ruin someone completely - physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually.

If you are after examples, then my example is the Roman policy that Jews must eat pork. The Roman army entered Jewish villages, set up stages on which they roasted pigs and the villagers who refused to eat were slain on the spot. It all took less than a minute.

So long as the policies affect only the public realm, that's OK - just have safeguards in place that the government's decisions do not devastate people in their private life.

Oops, my mistake: these were the Greeks of course, not the Romans - and this policy resulted in the Maccabi rebellion.

It is true! Shadow Minister said it and I agree! if both houses face election for three year terms at the same time we could expect the wrath of the voters on bad government, but too an elected government could get its bills in place, any answer that installs the ability of minority's to blackmail us can not be right

How far with the opt out do you want to go Yuyutsu.

If people don't want to comply with the society they live in, they should also not benefit, but where to stop.

Obviously they should not benefit from tax payer funded welfare or health care. Their kids should not be eligible for public education, & they should not be eligible for publicly funded health care.

But how about the public funded road system, water & sewerage systems, or the protection of them & their property by the police service.

I'm afraid that you will have to submit to all the rules of the society if you want to benefit from any. Deciding to benefit from any facilities obviously requires you to help fund those facilities.

I've sailed much of the nicer areas of the Pacific, & I just can't find a suitable unclaimed island where you could survive trying to live your independent life. Best just pay your taxes & use the facilities, or accept the rules if you are being supported by the taxes of others.

One good thing about the Senate is that we now have General Jim Molan in it. The Australian political class has been lacking military expertise, which has seen Canberra caught on the wrong foot time and time again. Consequently, these no-hopers are apathetic and indecisive. As Molan has said, China has won in the South China Sea: mainly because the rest of the world, and the useless UN, have allowed China to get away with illegal behaviour - aided by the cowardice of the Australian government and others in the region.

The situation is regarded by Senator Molan as a “lost cause” for Australia. China can now close the sea to shipping if it so chooses. And our political class just sat back and did nothing. It's a pity that Molan wasn't in Canberra when Chinese aggression in our region took the shape it did

Dear Hasbeen,

I fully agree and tick all your boxes. No acceptance of rules - no benefits. This includes no roads, no water, no sewerage and no police protection of life or property.

Moreover, a state may also, if so it wishes, reserve the right to use the money which it prints to its citizens/residents/visitors, and even by way of international agreements, reserve the right to use foreign currencies as well to the citizens/residents/visitors of all agreeing countries.

It is still possible upon negotiation, if both parties agree, to reach an agreement whereby non-accepting individuals can purchase some of these services for agreed sums or commodities. And if they want to leave their private enclaves, pass through public territory and travel on its roads, then they need to obtain a kind of a tourist/visitor-like visa, which would probably cost them, as well as to comply with all the laws for the duration of their travel.

«I just can't find a suitable unclaimed island»

Here we embark onto an interesting but difficult discussion over what exactly constitutes a legitimate claim on land.

Some claims are obviously legitimate, for example if several generations of ancestors have been intensively cultivating the land and buried there.

Other claims are definitely illegitimate, for example where a captain reaches a new shore and despite having seen just a little through his binoculars or stepped on only a small fraction of that shore, not to mention having cultivated or developed almost none of it, declares the whole island or continent that is encircled by that shore to belong to his master/king - that's ridiculous nonsense.

Then there is much grey area in between where the legitimacy of claims is not very clear.

Yuyutsu,

"Other claims are definitely illegitimate, for example where a captain reaches a new shore and despite having seen just a little through his binoculars or stepped on only a small fraction of that shore, not to mention having cultivated or developed almost none of it, declares the whole island or continent that is encircled by that shore to belong to his master/king - that's ridiculous nonsense."

Does that refer to Australia?

Dear Is Mise,

This refers to all claims over islands, big or small, that in essence answer this description.

What, in your view, exempts the British 18th century claim over Australia from this description?

This mornings SMH tell us the government may face a new senate threat 4 senators are forming a new block, each from a different party, two at least elected by voters to a party they are no longer in,any honest view must ask how do those who voted for the feel? my thought is betrayed,my case to remove or reform the senate seems strengthened by this news

Dear Belly,

What you described can (and does) occur in the lower house as well and within most electoral systems, perhaps except the Chinese...

An obvious solution is a semi-direct democracy.
Another is to allow parties to sack MPs (possibly subject to certain conditions), then bring in the next on their original list.
A milder version is to grant the funds (for staffers, etc.) and speaking-time allocations to parties rather than to members.

Reform seems more likely than my choice removal, so let the voters have the power to remove senators,those voters from the state that elected them,we can throw thoughts and ideas around, wishes and wants, but what ever we do must have majority support, I doubt our senate has or ever will have that

Yuyutsu,

"What, in your view, exempts the British 18th century claim over Australia from this description?"

Primarily the fact that Cook did not claim the whole of Australia

"Lieutenant James Cook’s journal, 22 August 1770:

Notwithstand[ing] I had in the Name of his Majesty taken posession of several places upon this coast I now once more hoisted English Coulers and in the Name of His Majesty King George the Third took posession of the whole Eastern Coast from … Latitude [38° South] down to this place by the Name of New South Wales together with all the Bays, Harbours Rivers and Islands situate upon the said coast after which we fired three Volleys of small Arms which were Answerd by the like number from the Ship."

Capt. Cook, bye the way, didn't have binoculars.

Exposing my political system ignorance for all to see but why is it that elected people to a particular party can jump ship & board another party ?
They should not be allowed to do that & should resign & then stand again at the next election.
They, like everyone else has to, can start anew.

Dear Is Mise,

Thank you for correcting me.

In light of the better information, do you consider Cook's firing of three Volleys of small Arms (and replying to them from a ship) as sufficient and legitimate grounds for claiming such a large territory?

If you tell me where you live, then I could come there with a sling (rather than small arms - this is to represent the proportionality between the area of your house relative to the area of the east coast of Australia), fling a small rock in the air, have my friend fling another small rock in reply, back in the other direction, then I would have a claim over the territory of your home, right?

Indi, under our Constitution, we elect the individual, not you, other individuals. An elected person has no duty of care concerning any political party, even the one he/she is a member of. Political parties have no recognition under the Constitution.

//They should not be allowed to do that & should resign & then stand again at the next election.// That would require constitutional change, and its not going to happen in our lifetime.

Paul1405,
cheers for that explanation. And here I was believing the Constitution was above leaving loopholes for a...holes to exploit so callously.

Yuyuitsu,

Under the prevailing rules formulated by the then World Powers Cook had every right to claim the East coast of Australia for his King.

Get over it.

Dear Is Mise,

In the discussion that led us here, Hasbeen wrote:

«I'm afraid that you will have to submit to all the rules of the society if you want to benefit from any. Deciding to benefit from any facilities obviously requires you to help fund those facilities.»

And I agreed.

But what in the case when one is not seeking any benefits?

Why should rules that other people make make any difference?
Why should they be allowed to override the natural sense of justice?

The law of the jungle might be feared, but should never be respected.

Is Mise,
These World Power rules in effect also enabled some Palestinians & Jews to occupy land in Australia.

IF some views expressed here came true a Muslim terrorist group could be elected to our senate, thankfully grown ups, most of us, no longer fear shadows and boggy men

Dear Belly,

I very much doubt that radicalised Muslims in Australia have the numbers to fetch even a tenth of a senator, but suppose they had, then what? all their senator could do is to unite everyone else against him.

On the other hand, should a MODERATE Muslim party be formed in order to make the daily life of ordinary Muslims in Australia easier, say by helping Muslims to get jobs where their observance of Ramadan and prayers is respected and supported, or by improving the labelling of alcoholic drinks, etc., then why not? I would even preference such a party above the major parties.

Better still is to set up a party for the protection of the freedoms of all religions - for Christians to maintain the inviolable sanctity of the confessional, for Jews to not be summoned to court on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays, for Muslims to be able to go on pilgrimage to Mecca even when otherwise prevented from leaving Australia, for JWs to be able to refuse blood-transfusion and immunisation, including for their children, for Sikhs to be able to carry their kirpans at all times, for Hindus to be able to bring cows into temples without "health and safety" restrictions, for both Hindus and Buddhists to be able to leave their bodies, temporary or permanently, through deep meditation (Samadhi) without having their relatives accused of "manslaughter" for failing to alert authorities that they stopped breathing and without authorities entering and disturbing their "corpses", etc. etc.

I expect such a pro-religion party, which I would be likely to vote for, to horse-trade with government and opposition for such religious protections. In exchange, it could allow government to do whatever it likes in areas that are irrelevant to religion such as economics, defence, foreign relations, infrastructure, etc. It's a win-win situation - what could be fairer than this?

There will be a Muslim in the Senate very shortly, in September so I believe.

http://www.mehreenfaruqi.org.au/about/

Belly,
You'd better look up how Britain & Germany & France & Holland & Belgium & Sweden ended up having Muslims in their Senate.
Be prepared to use up many Gigabytes looking it all up because that's how much evidence is already out there yet the Left is trying to play it down. Makes one wonder what the Left's real agenda is, eh ?

Yuyutsu we agree, others ignore the line you draw and I support, terrorist V Muslim more Muslims by a factor in the thousands, die for every WASP at the hands of terrorists, Muslim terrorists,not every Muslim is a terrorist.fact the western world, our country, benefits from information Muslims give that stops another mass murder, I am biased, I think every faith divides humanity,and that we must address that one day, but blind hate is not the answer.
My statement re terrorist in the senate only was an effort to HIGHLIGHT some got there with only 77 primary votes, that disturbs me,

Belly,

"... some got there with only 77 primary votes, that disturbs me,"

Why be disturbed, the voting system is Proportional Representation, so 'Primary' means nothing.

What do you think of First Past the Post?

First past the post is the only reasonable intelligent system for elections.

First it isolates our votes. No more my vote ending up electing someone I definitely do not want.

Secondly it stops this foolishness where a few votes can elect someone the majority definitely don't want with the trickle down of primary votes.

Thirdly it will stop the unrepresentative swill problem. With out enough votes, no one gets in.

Then if we stopped this equal members from each state, & required a minimum of 1% of the total national vote, it would reduce the swill, & save us money

Of course none of this is as good as just abolishing the senate completely, as it is way past it's use by date.

//You'd better look up how Britain & Germany & France & Holland & Belgium & Sweden ended up having Muslims in their Senate.//

Half of those countries don't have even have Senates. Might take you a while.

//Be prepared to use up many Gigabytes looking it all up because that's how much evidence is already out there//

Oh yes? Can I see some of this evidence of Muslims in Sweden's Senate, even though the Riksdag is unicameral? I daresay it will be most amusing.

Hasbeen yes one vote one value will do me, however if we insist on having a senate at the least reform it,I see no need or benefit in the smaller party's, single issue, or single person, getting a overpaid position,4 senators per state, no cash paid to party's or people not elected, no preference, votes did after first preference, fixed!
But me no buts! the thought disenfranchising small groups is not a bit more wrong than empowering them to rule over the majority

Half of those countries don't have even have Senates. Might take you a while.
Toni Lavis,
So, that doesn't alter the fact that they have Muslims infiltrated in every on of these Governments be it Senate or Parliament or whater nit-picking you want to do for purely academic worming about. You have just displayed a part of what's wrong, you picked on a petty technical issue & completely side-stepped the overall issue & that is not amusing.

Have a look at this link, it shouldn't take you long to realise that opportunistic nit-picking is a
mutt's game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQZKCH2hwa0

Dear Belly,

Where from this strange idea as if small groups wish to rule over the majority?

(it's rather the big groups, such as the major parties, that have such perverted wishes, then they project their own dirty minds on innocent others)

Small groups just want to protect their vital interests so they can maintain their way of life. It so happens that the only legal avenue they have to defend themselves against majorities, is to vote themselves to the senate of Australia - I am sure they would prefer to have alternate, better and easier ways to preserve their freedom: if we can find such ways, then indeed the senate becomes redundant!

Yuyutsu some times think you are pulling our legs, see no doubt exists in our house of ill repute known as the senate minority's have got things by blackmailing government in to letting them influence things only they want

First Past the Post:

3 candidates,

A. loved by many gets 33% of the vote.

B. loved by many as well, gets 33%,

C. Detested by most, gets 34%, elected even though 66% of the voters

hate his/her guts.

"Great" system, no wonder Labor opposed it, on democratic grounds, all those years ago.

//So, that doesn't alter the fact that they have Muslims infiltrated in every on of these Governments be it Senate or Parliament or whater//

But do they, though? I mean, they might - but you're clearly not a reliable source of information. Not so much because you got your facts wrong (to err is human), but because when you were corrected you threw a little tantrum and declared accurate information to be petty nit-picking.

Well with that sort of attitude, one can only assume you're none too critical about what you accept as 'fact'. If accurate information isn't important, and you don't care whether the claims you make are accurate because that's just 'academic worming about'... why on Earth should anybody believe them?

Hoping we'll just take it on faith?

//you picked on a petty technical issue & completely side-stepped the overall issue//

It's very hard to have a meaningful discussion about any subject in a vacuum of facts.

Get your facts straight first, and people might start to care about your opinions. Or not.

Had Labor controlled the Senate it would have passed the Malaysian solution, long ago boats would have stopped here and in all nearby Asian country's, YES our intake would have risen, for a time, yes we, while they continued, may have taken in say 20.000 more,now? no boats no need for offshore detention, no wounder Tony Abbott wishes he did not block it in the house of ill repute

Dear Belly,

«minority's have got things by blackmailing government in to letting them influence things only they want»

A blackmailer threatens to take away or damage what you already have.
For example he would kidnap your child, or would keep your files encrypted unless you give him the money he wants.

Refusing to give you something that you don't already have/own, is not a blackmail: say a shopkeeper tells you, I will not give you this lawn-mower unless you first give me $500 - you may not like it, but it is not an instance of blackmail.

Government currently does not have a majority in both houses - it is not theirs. If they want it, then they need to negotiate until those who have the commodity they want (more votes) agree to give it to them.

And this is why citizens who find themselves in a minority and dread that the most valued aspects of their way of life could be compromised by legislation, elect minority parties. They are not there to rule the country - they are there to protect what is most precious for them.

Perhaps as you say "only they want", but they want it so much, so badly, perhaps more than life itself, whereas the majority may indeed not want it, but their not-wanting is lukewarm so they do not object to it so bitterly with tooth and nail. The majority could find what the minority wants a little uncomfortable but it wouldn't produce a serious dent in their life.

Too long to quote here, so please read the biblical story of the poor man's lamb: 2-Samuel [12:1-7].
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Samuel+12%3A1-7&version=NIV