Why not abolish the senate?

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention, which drew up the Constitution, mostly were or had been parliamentarians in their own state and this undoubtedly influenced their decision. It was a decision incidentally, made even before they met. In 1889 Henry Parkes (1815–1896), a flamboyant influential New South Wales politician, declared that Australia's Federal Parliament would comprise 'a Parliament of two Houses, a house of Commons and a senate'. Surprisingly there was no further discussion of the matter.

In the actual Convention debates themselves, there was no opposition to the establishment of a senate or upper house, but there were other voices. Voices which came mostly from non-participants in the conventions, with the nascent Labour Party the most vocal. In the 1897 election for delegates to the Convention, New South Wales' Labour candidates campaigned on a policy which included opposition to an upper house, but as none were elected their voice was not heard. Other resistance came from those who remembered the difficulties with colonial councils, some of whose members were nominated for life and difficult to dislodge, but tradition and history prevailed as it often does, which suggests that the senate is the upper house we had to have. The question is do we still have to have it?

Arguments for abolition of the senate can just as easily be applied to the state Parliaments in Australia. All of them except Queensland have an 'upper' house or Council and all have a history of disruption and crisis, which is why Queensland abolished its Council in 1922 after some particularly rancorous conflicts between its two Houses. In 1951 New Zealand abolished its Council on the grounds that it was becoming ineffectual and irrelevant, Canada is seriously considering the idea and even in Britain, the model for our Parliament, there are questions as to whether it really needs an upper house.

The other consideration is cost, and the cost of the senate is huge. The 76 senators are each paid a basic salary of $195,130 per annum from 1 July 2013, (or a total of $14,829,880 a year) in a job that is guaranteed for six years, unlike their counterparts in the lower house who must face the electorate every three years. Add to that a generous expense allowance for such things as gargantuan bookcases (and books) or attendance at weddings to name just a couple.Then there is the huge electoral expense and attendant difficulties plus the running cost of the whole organisation with its Clerks, administrative officers and stately accommodation.

The manipulation of the electoral process is another disturbing factor with senate seats apparently in the gift of the major parties. All these factors suggest that the senate is an expensive extravagance that contributes little to the country's governance and indeed can wilfully distort or delay or reject legislation on the flimsiest of grounds.

On this evidence the senate does not fulfil its perceived roles but exists as a place where political parties can manipulate the membership and the voting to satisfy their own objectives and to reward long serving party members with a comfortable retirement occupation with little to do but turn up and vote as they are told.

It could be argued that the reasons to establish a senate are no longer valid, even anachronistic. Argument for abolishment could include that they are irrelevant, undemocratic, hugely expensive and obstructive to the more democratically elected House of Representatives which has to face the electorate every three years - or less.

Let's abolish it.