cods wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:07 pm
I am actually all for GETTING RID OF THE SENATE altogether
its more secret the ASIO...all doing deals and the push and shove to get
relevance is a joke really..
they dont impress me have far too much power....we dont elect them to stuff up the govt that is elected democratically yet thats what its become..
and that my friends means both sides....
they dont do the job which they were intended to do.....if they are anti govt expect the worst..
its thats simple... they are past their use by date,..
Ah, someone who isn't happy with the "electoral swill", hey, Cods? Glad you agree with Keating on that one, are you?
The Senate was formed originally as a "states' rights" house - where legislation could be reviewed from the perspective of the various states to make sure no one had the dirty done on them. Since then it has become simply a house of review. Nowadays it has started to become a representative house as well.
Personally, I like the Senate - as a house of review. Without it, we would end up like Queensland - a unicameral parliament which means legislation will always be passed and rarely reviewed. The Senate at least makes sure that legislation is reviewed and amended when the House gets it wrong.
Sometimes they get it wrong, no one is perfect. Most times they act responsibly and get it right. Means the electorate has two bites on the cherry where legislation is concerned and it means that the Government, more often than not, has to negotiate it's legislation past the House of Review.
Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. - Eric Blair