It is hard to disagree with your arguments about the ineffectuality of the Senate as it stands. However, in response to your outrageous suggestion, I would like to take the opportunity to offer an even more outrageous suggestion.

The reality is that in Australia, 60% of voters contribute just 10% of the tax revenue. That means of course, that the non-contributing majority will always vote for measures that result in those contributing to pay even more. Since the mid 1960s when one person in 22 was on welfare, we have now reached a situation where one person in 5 is on welfare (details subject to checking). Add in the carers and the bureaucrats..... You can see where this is going.

In my view, the body we need to replace the Senate with is a Taxpayers House. Under this scheme, the parliament can propose schemes, but the funding arrangements for the schemes would have to be approved by those who are paying - the taxpayers.

This model is more similar to the corporate structures which have proved effective (more or less) all over the world.

The Taxpayers House would be elected by the people, with votes in proportion to the tax you pay. Pay no tax - no vote. Pay lots - lots of votes. What could be fairer?

Well Herbert Stencil;

...If paying tax was the only issue relevant to voting power, great. But I believe your argument for a return to voter franchise over Government decision making, as you do, fails on the assumption that any significant power remains in the hands of the single voter!

A step in the right direction, next the federal parliament as well should be elected by the states.

This way we can keep Canberra as a ceremonious institute without teeth where they talk and talk and talk between morning-tea and afternoon-tea because it doesn't matter anyway.
(it would of course be too cruel to send 10000's bureaucrats home to the ranks of the unemployed)

After all, we citizens don't get to vote directly for our representatives in the United-Nations!

An excellent idea, Mr Stencil. But given the complications of our taxation system, it is unworkable in that format. Remember, everybody pays GST - definitely a tax.

There are changes needed, certainly. One is that most government revenue is raised by the Commonwealth but the overwhelming expenditure is by the States. A logical system would have GST retained by the Commonwealth, but income tax set by the States. If uniformity is needed, the Commonwealth should set the points where the marginal rates change, and determine the treatment of a person living in one State but paid in another. Then the States should set the marginal rates to balance their budgets.

Section 90 forbids the States imposing duties of excise. Two taxes levied previously by the States have been determined by the High Court to be excises and invalid. One is the Petrol Excise. This, and possibly others, should be returned to the States provided that the excise is exacted as a payment for services provided by the State (ie, paid to each State's Roads Corporation). Given each State pays for construction, maintenance and policing of roads, the State should be able to levy a petrol excise to pay for its roads. There would, of course, be no Commonwealth Fuel Excise which could be granted to the States!

With the individual States having sources of revenue sufficient for their own needs, Section 96 - which permits the Commonwealth to grant financial assistance to the States - should be abolished.

Finally, back to your original point, Mr Stencil, the number of votes a person could exercise in a Senate election would depend on the marginal income tax band. Zero if no income tax is paid, 1 if in the lowest tax bracket, 2 for the next higher, etc.

You will never be able to return the Senate into being a "State's House" but you may be able to improve the workings of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Dudley Horscroft