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Senate are no longer valid even anachronistic."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?