Making the Senate work efficiently is an imperative for the 21st century

The reform model initially proposed by the Prime Minister is based on the recommendations of a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reform as long ago as 1959. Once the Senate has twice rejected legislation it could be put to a joint sitting of both Houses without the requirement for a double dissolution.

The second model (the Lavarch model) in essence suggests that after a general election if the government is returned, bills twice rejected in the previous Parliament would be put to a joint sitting.

Variations on this model canvass mechanisms to alert voters to what bills could be put to a joint sitting in particular that the government would nominate the deadlocked bills in advance of the election.

It is difficult to argue against this model. It has the advantage that, if returned, the government's mandate to have those bills passed is unequivocal. The policies, indeed the precise legislation, will be on display for all to see and discuss during the election. If the nation does not approve, it is their democratic right to toss the government out.

We all know that the prospect of Senate reform involving a referendum is bleak. I call on the Labor Party to negotiate in good faith with the Coalition on reform of the Senate.