"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.