Heya ry

"The senate can even initiate new legislation through what is called a "Private Members Bill". In a legislative sense, there is no power held in the House of Reps that is not also held in the Senate."

I believe private members bills are simply legislation proposed to the HoR by members outside of the context of their party. Meaning, the bill is not formally being presented on behalf of any political party, and each representative may make a vote on it as he sees fit, instead of towing the party line. Needless to say, they almost always fail.
Could be wrong on that though...

"Do 80% of Australians really believe that refugees to this country should be locked up in prisons before being sent back to the atrocious regimes from which they fled?"

Do you really want to know the answer to that question ry? :\

Really though, I think you're seeing problems where there arent many. Double dissolutions arent held very often, and arent all that more expensive than regular elections anyway.

The referendum needed for such a drastic change to the senate would almost certainly fail (as will any attempt by Howard to change the Senate). The conservative Australian electorate just isnt up for change which *may* create a better system when they perceive the current system as working fine...

What your talking about is a conscience vote. Whereby a political party decides it is either politically dangerous (or they simply dont care enough about it) to take a position on a particular matter.

Stem cell research for instance. Both the major parties in the House of Reps, decided that it would be dangerous to come out with a policy position on this matter (sort of a politically damned if you do, damned if you dont scenario) so both the Coalition and the ALP decided to offer their MP's a conscience vote on the matter, allowing them to vote anyway they want without offending their allegiance to their respective parties.

Private members bills are different. Simply speaking, a PMB is any bill that originates from a member of parliament that is not a member of the government. That means senators are welcome to move Private Member Bills.

My original point was not to suggest that PMB's are particularly likely to be passed by the house, merely to demonstrate that, as far as legislation is concerned, there is no power held in the House of Reps that is not also held in the Senate, since bills can, strictly speaking, come from the senate or the lower house and need the assent of both houses to become law.

Except for the small matter of taxation, over which the Lower House is given a bit more power then the Senate.

"Really though, I think you're seeing problems where there arent many."

Ordinarily i would agree.

But I think that when you start thinking about the sort of senate you would like to see in the future, regardless of how unlikely it might be that there will be ANY changes in the function of the senate, you learn more about how the senate functions as it is today. The warts and foibles begin to stand out in stark contrast.

Why do senators get 6 year terms while MP's get 3 year terms?

If we are going to talk of an obstructionist senate, lets first fix small matters like this, before we go down the dangerous path of reducing the legislative power of the senate.

Why does a senator from NSW need 12 times as many votes to get a senate seat as does a senator from Tasmania?

Why make is so hard for independants and minor parties to pick up seats? The senate truly is the peoples house.... lets make it easier for the wide range of views held by the people to get some representation in parliament.

If John Howard wants to propose a way to water down the power of the senate, it doesnt hurt, despite the general futility of it, to propose an alternate model.

Just by the way, i dont mean by any of this proposal to suggest that the senate operates badly. Just that it doesn't operate perfectly.

Surely you can appreciate that Kirk? In the past you had heaps to say about the problems with an obstructionist senate. If the PM ever puts a referendum before the Australian people will you be voting for a weaker senate?

"Private members bills are different. Simply speaking, a PMB is any bill that originates from a member of parliament that is not a member of the government. That means senators are welcome to move Private Member Bills."

But a Private Member Bill still needs to go through the HoR, right?

"Surely you can appreciate that Kirk? In the past you had heaps to say about the problems with an obstructionist senate. If the PM ever puts a referendum before the Australian people will you be voting for a weaker senate?"

I dont see any explicit need for constitutional change, major or minor at the moment. If Howard does push for a referendum you can be sure I'll be voting against it, unless he makes a very good case.

I saw something pretty worrying on the news today: state campaign finance reform. From the jist of it, it sounded like Labor are planning on institutionalising the two party system. Bad stuff...

Dead thread maybe, but as The Herd said, "77% of Aussie's are racist, I'll say it to your faces".

So maybe that 88% was overstating it a little.

So that looks like that is how people generally feel, eh?

Well, at least they are safe.

And did John Howard really play us like well-tuned fiddles Ryan, or are the people of Australia writing the music that he has to play??

Hmmmm...

Why do senators have double terms? Ask a Queenslander.

No, seriously though, it because of situations like the one we have now. Labor's looking good for the next election, if they do things right they'll walk it in. Now imagine every political seat in the country up for grabs. People seeking change from the current government vote in droves for Labor, giving them a clear majority in both Houses. Labor can immediately pass ANY legislation they like, as long as it doesn't infringe the Constitution. Six year terms are essentially your prize for hanging on to Government for a while, the idea being that if you've done well enough to build power over a couple of elections, you shouldn't lose it all in one.

People sometimes have rather short memories. Six year terms are some protection against that.