Can parliament work better?

The move from expert to political assessment marks a critical step. At this point cross-bench, opposition, media, interest group and public opinion enters the equation. This now happens privately in Cabinet. A parliamentary enquiry would introduce a new and transparent phase. The committee enquiry would occur first. Cabinet could then deliberate with considerably more political intelligence about parliamentary and community attitudes. All protagonists would have engaged more deeply with rationales and options.

There would undoubtedly be some early 'ragged' experiences. In Australia's poisoned political atmosphere, a new approach to policy development could not be expected to attain instant success. The risks, which Ross Gittin's acknowledges above, are real. But what is the alternative? The present system is not delivering – not for Labor, not for the Coalition, not for cross benchers and least of all for the Australian people.

Why the Senate? The Senate is the right House to locate such enquiries. First, given the pluralised attitudes in the Australian community it is only by a fluke that any party will ever again have a majority in that Chamber. Second, this is how the Senate was conceived and indeed how it worked in Australia's three party period in the first decade after Federation. The Senate in effect acted as the agenda gatekeeper for emerging issues. This role changed when the two party system emerged in 1909.

Ultimately the committee system might evolve. The British committees work to a consensus rule. That used to be the case here. Why not try again? That's the way to start exploring potential for cross-party accommodations. The late David Hamer suggested many years ago that the Senate be converted to a Committee House – with Ministers and the executive drawn only from the Representatives. Committee chairs would then enjoy standing roughly equivalent to Ministers. All these are possible developments.

But the first step is to acknowledge that the present system is broken and narrative will not be a sufficient repair. The problem is quite different - it's ultimately caused by a slow-burn crisis of political legitimacy. It's time to explore another approach.