CM/o sung wo, first we should agree no one side can ever deliver perfection,the best, in my opinion, we can get is the better of two, well not evils but selections, if it is the intention of well over 80 percent of voters that one of those two govern why let some, who in fact in one case got 19 votes for themselves but rode in on the back of a party he *then betrayed* blackmail the elected government? the next senate will be better than this, but neither side can hope to control it, if Democracy is about the wishes of the majority, and surely it is? then how can the chook pen claim to serve it? halve the number of senators, make it three year terms, in lock step with lower house elections. at least,, if we can not remove it

Hi Belly, who is the majority in the Senate, the LNP with 35% of the vote, or Labor with 30%. From the days of Gough the Senate has been a pet hate of the Labor Party, I to in my Labor days was anti Senate, on reflection I was wrong. The Senate does serve a useful purpose, that as a truer representation of the Australian (voting) population, and the Senate Committee system does very much hold the government of the day to account. Without the Senate such things as the Banking RC would not take place. The Senate also provides some very capable politicians, from your side Penny Wong for one, and the Liberals Mathias Cormann has been more than useful. Richard Di Natale for the Greens is very capable, and Derryn Hinch as an independent has been a surprise to many. Don't forget screwballs can also get elected to the lower house, The Mad Katter resides there, and not in the Senate.

Paul 1405 let us be honest yes the greens are,, if any exist, the current third force in our country, others have made a play DLP Democrates, PUP Xenophon and failed, too I SHARE THE VIEW ONLY IN THE SENATE CAN YOUR PARTY THRIVE, FORGET MY VIEWS, UNDERSTAND A MAJORITY OF VOTERS WILL never vote green, to win government Labor DID invade Liberal territory, after they left it,,not betrayal following the voters, you must be middle of the road to govern, IF my wish, reform was granted, we have to know your party would in all probability still hold the balance of power

Hi Belly,

In the early days of Australia's federation, the Labor Party was the third party, behind the "Big Two", the Protectionist and Free Trade parties. We have had literally hundreds of political parties and groups come and go in Australian politics. Why is that, because they failed to broaden their base among the voting population. The early "Big Two" were guilty of that and they disappeared. The Labor Party, formed as a "workers rights" party was able to broaden its base by developing policies in such areas as education, health, social welfare, trade, defence etc etc. If Labor had stuck to narrow defined workers rights only policy they to would have been consigned to the political dust bin.
The Greens, and I do not say this with bias, go out of their way to develop policy in all areas, that is the key to not only survival, but future growth.

BTW if either of the "Big Two" had won 50% of the Senate vote last election they would now be holding between 38 and 46 of the 76 Senate seats, a preference quirk could have given the one with 50% of the vote all 76 seats. They would have absolute control.

Paul as you know Howard held the majority for a while, allowing him to launch his anti workers work choices thing that cost him his seat,I can find no reason to claim the chook pen serves majority voters right now, its long lost reason for existing, states house, or even house of review, no longer seem to exist,reform, true real reform that leads to an end to blackmailing the majority surely serves democracy not confronts it

G'day there BELLY...

As usual your political wisdom is apparent - you're right of course, no Political Party can ever deliver perfection in their administration. BELLY you're far shrewder on the make-up of the political landscape than most. But as we've discussed in the past, we both 'seem' to agree, the greatest obstacle and impediment to good governance; is the Senate. You're right again when you aver, an individual with just 19 votes, can and does enter the Federal Senate, after which he's in a position to make vital decisions that can have significant consequences on the entire population.

My view of the essential functions of the Senate, is a House of Review. Not as Legislator's. That's squarely within the purview of the The House of Representatives. A case in point, New Zealand had shed itself of their upper House, and as a consequence has managed to introduce significant, 'positive' legislation, much to the amelioration of the entire country. I believe we have much to learn (politically) from our good friends across the ditch.

I've just heard, apparently last night on ABC TV, they'd done a parody or mockery concerning Scott MORRISON'S devout Christian proclivities. Do you believe (i) That's a good way to spend taxpayers money (ii) and isn't the PM'S religious convictions, his own personal business? Speaking of 'draining' the swamp - they should put a stiff broom through their administrators in the ABC? Do you have a view on this BELLY? Thanks mate.