So who do the Senators represent?

The defection of Julian McGauran from the National Party to the Liberal Party exposes one of many fundamental flaws in the Senate Just who do these so and so's think they actually represent.
There are at least three dimension to this

• The States Since the whole State elects Senators on a quota basis and we get something approximating proportional representation (ie. the more votes you get the more senators your block gets). Par excellence Senator Barnaby Joyce has demonstrated this in recent months. The constitution and popular thought give credence to this. Senators are there to get what they can for their States. I have a certain affinity to this viewpoint, and think it provides an important balance to our increasingly "executive style" of operation.
• The Parties Remember we were conned into an "above the line" or "below the line" system some years ago. You only have to write one number on a senate voting paper and then the system does the rest. You don't have to vote above the line but you may. This is the lazy way of voting in my opinion. Though it is perfectly understandable that many people don't want to write 1-75 numbers on their paper. But it is a con. It suits the larger parties. If you only write one number then the party you have voted for decides where all your preferences will go...even if you don't like it. It advantages the Big Boys, and disadvantages the little fellas.

  I have never voted above the line! The so-called major parties hate those of us who think the senate should be the place for a voice of independence. Very pragmatic, but very dictatorial. They want a Senate fully compliant to executive will and have no interest in the States' rights or sectional interests.

  The Constitution says nothing of party-government. Senators are supposed to be the State's representatives not the hacks of national parties

• Sectional interests. It is hard to get voted into the Senate if you are a loner though some have done it. Once there, particularly if you hold the balance of power, you can suddenly find yourself being courted from everywhere. A recent example is Brian Harradine (see an interesting reflection on Harradine by Margo Kingston ) he managed to get all sorts of concessions out of governments both for Tasmania and for his own particular interests. This can get a little scary when you don't like the sort of sectional interests an independent balance holder might have. This is the case with local SA Upper House member Nick Xenophon who has had a remarkable influence on public policy not just in his area of "No Pokies" but also in other areas where the two major parties need to be vigorously challenged.

  I have written before about the sadness of the fact that we do not have democratic debate in our Parliament but rather limp-wristed party compliance. We seem almost frightened of diversity of opinion. Yet it would seem that by definition democracy should embrace vigorous debate.

So, what is McGauran doing when he leaves the party that saw him elected and joins another party? It seems he claims that he will claim to be a Senator for Victoria, even though he was elected by the above-the-line National Party voters. If he resigned then by convention the State Government would appoint another National Party member (though this has not always happened...remember the fall of the Whitlam Government was precipitated because the Qld govt did not follow that convention). It is unlikely that this will be resolved with integrity, since these things aren't these days...but no doubt Senator McGauran will sleep easily for the rest of his six year term. Shame on him!