Australia should be weakening (actually getting rid of) the senate, but also REDUCING the power of Canberra, has which too much power - power that it was never supposed to have according to the Constitution. Canberra sucks up 80% of taxes, and metes bits out to the states, whereas the states are supposed to be competitive, innovative and seeing to the needs of the ths people where they actually lives their lives, which is certainly not in the rarified atmosphere of Canberra.

Yes Brendan, we are but on country with eight oft divided governments fighting each other for the spoils of defeat! This expensive parody costs the taxpayers some 70 billions plus per!

And given it's wasted on pollies and their gold plated for life entitlements! Better spent on more productive rather than obstinately stalled forever, outcomes!

This same wasted money could have already bought and paid for a rapid rail system connecting the eastern seaboard. Housed the entire homeless population!

Built several dozen thorium power stations and turned our arid desert wastelands into veritable gardens of eden.

Yes there's an irrefutable case for a single voting system for both houses, that eliminates par for the course backroom preference swaps and what have you!

Recent reforms to Senate voting should be extended and applied to the lower house, which could also see its members elected by a Nation wide proportional system?

And doable, if we grew up and started behaving like the one nation we claim we are!

Now, no (state) politician is ever going to put the true national interest ahead of his or her narrowly focused agenda!

But will need be levered off their fiefdoms via a national referendum, [which they to a generic man, can be guaranteed to fight tooth and nail, to the last drop of political blood, to defeat,] held to disband all our completely unnecessary and oft times entirely counterproductive state legislators!

You've made an excellent case for parliamentary reform Brendan! Just not a credible or cogent one for ever, however convenient, disbanding the state's house of review, the Senate!

We want a democracy, not in the worst possible exchange, an autocracy!

That said, we are in the final analysis, the most over governed nation on the planet, bar one! Time for sanity to finally prevail!

After all, there are cities with comparable or larger populations than the whole of Australia, governed by a single administration/council!
Alan B.

I disagree completely with many of the ideas described in this article.

The author seems to have forgotten that the Senate was established as both a "house of review" and the "State's House". It is a place allowing a more measured pace of review where bills for acts can be more closely examined, both in detail and overall. In many cases this Senate overview discloses major defects in bills which it is able to amend and then return to the House of Representatives for that House to consider the Senate's amendments.

I understand that the price for the smaller states joining NSW and Victoria in federation was the concept that all states would have equal representation. This what makes the Senate the "States' House".

One major reason for the Senate acting as it has recently is a slight carry-over of Tony Abbott's doctrine of "It is the Opposition's job to Oppose [everything at all times]" with the intention of making Parliament unworkable and driving Julia to an early election.

Another reason for the Senate's recent actions has to do with the current government's belief that because it has a majority in the Lower House every measure it proposes should pass through the Upper House with only minor delay and little, if any, amendment. Acting on this belief, it has produced some draconian bills with the apparent intention of increasing the monetary burden on the poor and disadvantaged and the reduction of the monetary burden on rich individuals and large [multi-national?] companies.

I am delighted that the Senate is standing up for the bottom 5% of Australians as this means that every bill will pass only when the Senate when that House recognises its fairness and balance. Much negotiation is needed for some bills and other bills have so many unacceptable parts that no amount of negotiation will see them pass. A bill which the Senate will not pass should never have been introduced to the Reps in the first place.

Senators, please keep doing what you are doing and make this country, once again, the land of the "Fair Go"

It's a long time since senators represented their states, unless they are independents. Labor, Liberal, Greens represent their parties. All party politicians represent parties, not constituents. There are too many politicians, and the dopes in the senate should be the first to go.

Brian

While the intended purpose of the Senate may have been to act as a "House of Review" and a "State's House", in reality it fulfils neither such role. Most Senators act little differently to members of the House of Reps, except that they have a lot less constituency work. Very few do much to stand up for their state.

The idea of an election is to elect a Government that can govern. Regular stalemate with the Senate blocking budgets and legislation just makes our parliamentary process ineffective.

ttbn,
While it may have appear to have been a long time since Senators represented their state, it is not all that long ago. Tony Abbott can take the blame for the Senate being like the House of Reps with his 'oppose everything' ideology. The Senate 5 to 10 years ago was a place of polite debate where it was unusual for the President to have to call to order.

Bren,
The Senate was just as diverse during Julia Gillard's Prime Ministership as it is now. The real difference was that the Government of that day was far more committed to listening and negotiating than the Coalition of today. It is not a good idea to introduce an extreme bill when the numbers for it aren't there. The Coalition are using this shabby trick to make the Senate appear to be more obstructionist than it really is.

Gillard's government passed a record number of acts, almost twice that of the two Coalition governments since by doing an impressive amount of negotiating before a bill was introduced and while it was in progress. No stamping of feet and temper tantrums for her, just calm and focused discussion within Parliament House.

I would love to see the Coalition talking with the Oppositions to increase the possibility of a bill passing. No ideology here just needing some pragmatism: I don't want to see an ideology-blinkered Coalition offering up bills it knows will get knocked back.

Negotiate, talk, compromise, be polite, take off the blinkers!