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.

The Senate is not all that democratic, given the voting system. Nor is it the ‘state’s house’ as it is supposed to be: senators will always go with their party. In other words, the Senate is a hoax – as it now stands.

What senator, with such an easy entrée into politics – needing only the touch on the shoulder from his party, having no hard work to do like candidates for the Lower House, and dead cert ‘victory’ – is going to buck the party line?

The author asks whether or not the Senate carries out its roles. The answer, mostly, is no. And, the balance of power has so far has been held by extremists of the Left, living in a tiny world of their own. It is downright stupid to have minorities (Left or Right or simply rev heads or dope smokers) holding the balance of power and blocking the will of the majority.

Certainly, reform is required; but whether or not the Senate should be abolished requires a good deal more thought and investigation than opinion.

What is more important, and vital to Australia, is the corruptibility of our entire voting system, where votes are lost (WA); where the AEC is a law unto itself; where the AEC enrols people over 18 for voting, without their knowledge, INCLUDING NON-CITIZENS; where the AEC talks about “irregularities” instead of fraud; where people can visit any number of polling booths and cast multiple votes without detection and, therefore, some politicians could be in Parliament unlawfully.

Yes. Something needs to be done about the Senate. But, in the meantime, forget the lies that Australia has “the best voting system in the world”, and the belief that corruption occurs only in foreign countries. There is, as yet, no evidence of corruption in the system. But it would be naïve not to demand that the system be changed. And, we cannot leave the investigation and change to the independent Australian Electoral System. It must be demanded of our elected representatives, who just might be in Parliament when they should not be.

I have a better idea - Lets abolish parliament entirely. Then we could always implore upon the good nature of the Muslim Brotherhood to govern the country ?

No way will the politicians be separated from there taxpayer funded gravy train. They will have to be forced out. I like the idea.

Yep Philip S, they are a bit like academia, & the bureaucrats in that aren't they?

Anyone proposing a referendum to abolish the Senate should read carefully the fine print of Section 128 of the Constitution. To abolish the Senate, you would not only need a majority in the whole country, but you would need a majority in EVERY state. At the moment the electors of Tasmania rightfully have the same representation in the Senate as NSW. If it wasn't for the constitutional guarantee, they would'nt have even 5 seats in the reps. Do you really think they are going to give this up? It just isn't going to happen.

Eric whoru speaks..ABOUT Governance...the peoples sovereignty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9y-XMYL3T0

"Sweden and Denmark"

Which have proportional representation.
Odd how you don't mention that.

"Senators mostly follow the party line"

And the Reps don't?

"Independents and small parties in the senate usually represent only their own interests"

That's why people voted for them.

The majors' centrist duopoly means many issues are not addressed as sufficiently as some voters would like, hence they vote for alternate parties with more focused agendas.

"The simple answer is because Britain has a House of Lords."

If that were the case, our upper house would be appointed, not elected.
The two houses bear no resemblance.

"While it is an easier term to use than the full names, it is misleading, and underlines the fact that the senate is an anachronism."

Lower and Upper?
Who cares what terms are used?
Call them the Chocolate and Vanilla houses, the Wet and Dry, Sweet and Sour if you like. WHO CARES!

"The 76 senators are each paid a basic salary of $195,130 per annum. Add to that a generous expense allowance"

Oh, and the Reps get food stamps?

Does your reform include proportional representation?
Direct democracy?
And most important: an elected body that represents the entire nation as a *singular* undivided entity, something we've never had!

If all you propose is to enhance the Tweedles' dominance, forget it!

Getting rid of the state parliaments would be a better discussion to be had. We are over governed FULL STOP. We should have uniform laws and court system, education and the rest of it. Then there'd be no passing the buck between states(including territories) and the federal government.

I agree with Shockadelic for the reasons given. The post is tripe, and what's more it's dangerous tripe. Why? In a word: Queensland (or Nebraska, if you live in the US). Why? More seriously now, many of us are wary of the concentration of political power.

I subscribe to the maxim: "Power is best when it's most widely distributed." To me, this means:
- Federalism (power distributed across a number of jurisdictions),
- an independent Judiciary, with powers to review legislative and executive actions,
- a free and fair voting system, proportional representation being favored, and
- a strong "upper" House (incidentally, the term "Senate" as a deliberative body goes back to ancient Rome, many centuries before the establishment of a House of Lords).

As in the US, the Australian Senate's equal representation by state was originally an inducement for the smaller states to join the federation. With the rise of political parties, however, that purpose has fallen prey to partisan politics. Nevertheless, the role of the Senate is clear: it holds the Government (centered in the "lower" House) accountable between federal elections. The Constitution empowers the Senate to amend all bills passed by the "lower" House, except money bills, which the Senate may block but not amend (1975). A vigorous and assertive Senate is necessary for the continuing health of Australian democracy.

With John Howard's Sedition Laws in place and the senate gone fascism is a real prospect. Look at the Qld bikie laws.

You have committed a crime against the people. You obey these laws, because you have consented to be governed by the people by living on these lands...What is the one thing these statements have in common? They all operate from a collectivist platform. Statists believe in the “social contract” theory. The idea that through the constitution, through using public roads, and having a birth certificate, you are inherently under the authority of the government. However, these arguments are severely flawed.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/do-you-consent-to-be-governed-myths-and-facts_012014
Firstly, for a contract to be valid, it must be done under full disclosure, it must contain the signature of the contract creator and the wet signature of the customer who agrees to its terms, nor can a valid contract be created under duress. The birth certificate, nor does the constitution abide by these basic contract rules. And as far as using government services, when the government has claimed eminent domain and has successfully monopolized most of societies essential services, we are left with little choice on whether or not we should use them, if we want to have productive lives. It’s not like private companies are allowed to compete with government provided services. However, even as a man who does not pay income taxes, he will still fund the roads, since the taxes collected on gasoline are apportioned towards infrastructure. Sales taxes, excise taxes, etc…..are unavoidable for the general population, even among so called “illegal immigrants.” Everyone pays taxes, not by choice, but because the mafia (government) forces us into their protection racket scheme either directly or indirectly to some degree or another.

Now, this brings me to address the title of this post. Do we truly consent towards being governed and does the state even exist, or is it merely just a corporate title? The answer is obvious. We are the coerced clients of a monopolized insurance company known as the Government.

Seems some of the commentators here are at least crypto-republicans so while we might may well say Peter Cosgrove for GG, I'm all for a mature, informed but still just slightly larrikin Australian as our first president. Shane Warne comes to mind for an ability to bowl out the Senate behind its legs.

The Senate is actually the more representative house. My posts at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14427&page=0 give the voting percentages, the number of seats won and the percentage of seats won in various House and Senate elections since 1970. They show that the Senate has a better fit with how people vote than the House.