Howard's Senate reform proposals are another grab for absolute power

It is a brave nation, equally a remarkably gullible one, that would put complete power in the hands of a cunning politician.

History has taught all mankind that those they should fear most are the Executive. Democracy was invented to curb the power of kings, dictators, theocrats, oligarchs and sundry others. The separation of powers, and the establishment of democratic checks and balances, are the third-party insurance against he who would be king.

By proposing to strike down the power of the Senate, doing away with the only effective check on government, John Howard is proposing a parliamentary dictatorship.

He is right in one respect. That is to have the debate. One in which we will argue for more checks and balances, not less.

To put it bluntly, John Howard's plan to neuter the Senate, to reduce it to a benign rubber stamp for the executive in the House of Representatives, is a plain bad idea.

It is also out of touch. In the Senate 25 per cent of Australians do not cast their first vote for Labor or the Liberals. Many Australians vote differently lower to upper house.

A proposal to corrode the Senate's powers would turn the Australian parliament into nothing but a two-party playground.

There are many arguments for significant Constitutional change and modernisation. Indeed, we should not shy from debate on the role and power of the Senate in the broad context of Constitutional reform.

But this none-too-subtle attack on the Senate is about John Howard not getting the result that he wants playing by the rules, so he'll change them.

He should note that the truly great players always adapt and play within the rules, not alter them to suit their game.

Under the current rules, any party could actually gain a majority of seats in the Senate - allowing them to effectively govern without Senate challenge - if they got a majority of votes from the public.

If you want to be picky, the Coalition is a minority not a majority. In 2001 they achieved 43 per cent of the primary vote for the House of Representatives, and 42 per cent in the Senate.

Many people regularly vote differently in the Senate than the House of Representatives specifically to ensure the government doesn't have a tame Parliament that will blithely give the nod to the Prime Minister's every wish. The Prime Minister really should respect the Australian public's instinctive appreciation of the value of checks on rampant government power between elections.

The Senate must also remain strong as it is arguably far more representative in its composition than the House of Representatives, and therefore far more accurately reflects the diverse will of the people. Its 76 Senators - 12 from each of the six states and two from each of the mainland territories - are elected by proportional representation within each state or territory, so that the Senate's composition closely reflects the voting pattern of the electors.

Further, by hamstringing the Senate, the political influence of the smaller states suffers against the power bases of NSW and Victoria.

In the face of John Howard's constant gripes about the Senate, the facts actually totally undermine his claims that the Senate is not functioning as a house of review. Bills are constantly being amended as a result of Senate inquiries and the government is accepting those amendments.

So far this year, the Senate has passed 44 Bills and the Senate successfully amended 12 Bills. Last year 156 Bills were passed, with 42 Bills successfully amended by the Senate.

The Senate in recent years - indeed since the Democrats initially gained the balance of power following the 1980 election - has operated and continues to work in anything but a hostile manner.

The Senates of the previous four parliaments have passed between 97.6 and 99 per cent all bills that came before it.

To say that the Senate has operated in a hostile manner really is the latest in a string of untruths emanating from the government on issues ranging from the children overboard affair, to the state of the nation's finances, and now to the Senate's actions and motives.

But, under this government, the calculated and sustained attack on the Senate motivated by an overwhelming desire for absolute power by the Executive has been thinly disguised.

We have seen the separation of power constantly under attack by the Howard government. This government has unleashed some of the most blatant attacks on the Judiciary that Australia has ever seen. It openly advocated stacking it with "Capital C" conservatives. Under this government, department heads are now also subjected to miserly short-term contracts, reducing the independence of the bureaucracy and making it a lap dog to its political masters.

Despite the whinging, there are just four double-dissolution triggers at present.

It is important to look at the content of what the Senate is stopping before leaping to the conclusion that this government, having been elected to power, is being frustrated in introducing its program of reform.

What the Senate is currently stopping is the government making medicines more expensive, the Senate is stopping them making life more difficult for the disabled, the Senate is stopping an erosion of civil liberties and an undermining of workers rights.

Not passing these does not threaten our economy. The Senate can hardly be accused of applying the handbrake to progress.

The Democrats will continue to steer legislation that is beneficial to all Australians through the Senate, while using the system to avoid the potholes of excess.

A system that allows for this appropriate check and balance is far preferable to one that allows any prime Minister to jump aboard a steamroller and force through any retrograde, ideologically driven legislation that takes its fancy.

Democracy is designed to ensure that all citizens have an equal say. The Senate guarantees that and the Australian public is wise to it.