Sometimes although rare, even govt Senators cross the floor and vote against their own side.
Rare? That's an understatement. The only party that allows a member to cross the floor is the LNP. Who was the last Labor senator to cross the floor and what happened to him/her?
That's a rhetorical question.
Your definition of the role of the senate is quaint. When did we get to vote on the changes to its role from Federation?
It was intended to be the house of the states - it is no such thing now.It was never intended to be as powerful as the House - where governments are formed.
All the writings on the parliamentary website assume that we all agree that its role as currently performed is idyllic and desirable, even democratic - never a mention that it is in no way reflective of the original intention. We shouldn't blindly accept those explanations as indisputable - they are just opinions, and we all have them.
We have never had a senate like the current one. It's possible to deal with the numbers and situations like Howard had but nobody can manage this current batch of accidental members, too many of who are hopelessly unqualified to be there. Howard would have had the same problem.
Just telling us how it works doesn't help - we all know the gov needs to manage for a majority - it ignores the fact that the current senate is dysfunctional.
Take Lazarus for example. He famously accused Pyne of stalking him with texts for a meeting over education reform and Pyne then tells everybody that he had never managed to get any response let alone a single meeting. Last week Lazarus at the Press Club complains that nobody from government had approached him about the trucking wages. You can't deal professionally with such people.
No - the original role of the senate has long disappeared and we had no say in that transformation.
The senate should be abolished or reconstructed. How the hell can we justify 12 Tasmania senators?
