A Government frustrated

The moderate reforms would seem to be the more likely pathway except that the minor parties (the Greens and Family First) and the Independent (Xenophon) may not be keen to embark on such a strategy. Their potential to use the balance of power to achieve objectives that are important to their constituents - and their own re-election - may not be served by what Senator Faulkner has in mind.

Furthermore, to reduce the six-year term and to amend the half Senate election rule would require difficult constitutional amendments (for example, sections 7 and 13). Nevertheless, if both major parties can agree on such a move - and this is conceivable - these changes could be introduced successfully. But they do not take care at all of the anachronistic, disproportional representation of the states in the Senate in terms of population. It also does not remove the problem of possibly conflicting election outcomes in the House of Representatives and Senate on account of the different electoral systems. Thus obstructionism and delays may well continue as before.

The second alternative is for the major parties to combine forces and re-introduce the electoral system prior to 1949 that would mean ending proportional representation for the Senate. This would be a highly unpopular and retrograde move. The reason for that public sentiment is that the record of the Senate since 1949, as an independent house of review, has been far superior than it was before that year. Many commentators argue that the Senate has in fact often performed the role of a real Opposition. The quality of the debates in that chamber and amendments to legislation have also been regarded as superior to what happens in the House. The papers from the 1999 Conference, mentioned earlier, provide a good overview of this.

Efforts to reduce the power of the Senate, most recently undertaken by the Howard government, have come to nothing due to lack of public support. In a sense the Senate has been the redeeming branch of the Parliament thanks in large measure to proportional representation.

Thus, the conclusion would have to be that Senator Faulkner and the ALP have only two alternatives. Either they adopt proportional representation for the House of Representatives as well or they muddle through as before. An ordinary amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act is required to introduce proportional representation in the House. In my view no constitutional amendment is required. Majority support for such a reform, in both chambers, is highly likely.