WHEN PM Malcolm Turnbull gambled on a double dissolution election he only had ears for the rhetoric of his backbenchers, party members and his toadies. They argued that the government was elected on “a mandate to govern”.

The rhetoric of such people would have us believe that the Senate has been impossible to manage, has been obstructionist and downright blockers. The only way to fix the situation, they argue, is to simply vote for the major parties.

However, the Australian Constitution was deliberately set up to provide a house of review, with the role of double checking legislation, government policy, the Budget and the implementation of government decisions.

Turnbull has followed in the footsteps of former Labor PM Paul Keating allowing his own frustration with the Senate to lead him into attack mode.

The anomaly for the Turnbull government has been putting the community first with legislation that allows the voters the right to preferential voting for the Senate.

This is something that was resisted by Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and his Labor colleagues with unfettered and blistering attacks, particularly those targetted at the Greens. The legislation was successful and now allows ordinary voters to prioritise cross-benchers on the ballot paper before their preferred major party.

The cross-benchers, with leadership from Nick Xenophon and the Greens, have guaranteed the passage of the government’s Budget. Despite election rhetoric, a competent prime minister is able to govern.

Instead of blaming cross-benchers for their frustration, the last three prime ministers should look to the example of Julia Gillard. Not only did she have a minority in the Senate, but also in the House of Representatives. Even so, her government successfully saw the passage of more legislation than had been seen within a similar time period before or after.

Prime Minister Gillard was prepared to work with the cross-benchers. Her government was prepared to compromise, to consider their issues and to seek a way through.

When Prime Minister Tony Abbott promised “no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS” he considerably improved the chances of a successful election outcome for the Coalition partners.

The efforts of the cross-benchers to hold Abbott and the Coalition to these promises, as far as their power would allow, should be encouragement for voters to support people standing for a cross-bench position as a aenator. The vicious rhetoric that typifies attacks on cross-benchers by the major parties should be seen for what it is, self-serving claptrap.

In April, Josh Bornstein, writing in “The Guardian”, pointed out the real problem for the Coalition government: “Economic illiteracy can be masked by theatrical bluff and bluster for only so long”.

“The government’s 2014 Budget cut a swathe through its pre-election promises including gouging an $80 billion hole in funding for health and education,” he wrote.

“Taxes weren’t cut; in fact, there was an attempt to raise a new tax – for visiting a GP. The Senate kept the government to its pre-election promises and it has been stuck in a paralysing funk ever since”.

A “mandate to govern” argument might be able to be sustained by the governments of Queensland or the NT that have a unicameral system elected from single-member electorates. However, even these jurisdictions have had to work with minority governments.

Social media is playing a part in ensuring the blustering, the filibustering and the loud-mouthed rhetoric of the major parties is seen for what it is. It is simply the banshee screeches of those who believe they have the right to rule. The electorate may well have a different view.