my response to this is simple...the author obviously does not live in Queensland!

lets be fair
give us a choice
i reckon dump the lower house

have courts MAKE THE law..ratified by senet..
or dump the states..or councils..OR FORBID ;LAWYERS LEGISLATING LAWS

true..SEPPERATION OF POWERS

WE ARE Over Governed..TOO MANY PUBLIC SERVANTS IS THE REAL PRPOBLEM
they serve special/BUSINESS..AND SELF..interests..not the people

jail the lot for treason..

michael paine,

Agreed, with no Senate we'd all live in Queensland.

Not to worry, Australia! When we do become a republic, our presidents and their armies will make good and sure they are not hamstrung in implementing policy by pesky layabouts who spend most of their intellectual energy accumulating vast pensions in our many so-called 'houses of the people'.

"...the senate is known as the Upper House and the House of Representatives the Lower House, even though the executive power resides in the lower house, making it the more powerful. While it is an easier term to use than the full names, it is misleading..."

Then one solution is to not use the terms. Or better still use more accuracy and think laterally.

As the Representatives holds executive powers it could be commonly known as the In-House (coincidentally where politicians try to keep their corrupt dealings) which would, you'd agree, make the Senate the Outhouse.

Why do we need a house of review? You only have to read today's article by Patrick Keyzer to find the answer. Marchant's article is an excellent argument for reform of the senate, but not abolition. We need more scrutiny of the actions of government - not less.