The Australian Washminster system borrows most heavily from the American Republic in the Senate. The Australian Senate is based upon State representation, and is supposed to hinder the House of Representatives from passing legislation that is either tyrannical or skewed beneficially toward a particular state. The State representation is supposed to ensure the federal nature of the system, as a collection of states consenting to a federal authority, is adhered to. Party discipline has effectively broken that function of the Senate.

The unwitting innovation of proportional representation helped transform the Senate the most in its century of operation. This enabled the rise of the minority party as check on executive power over the last quarter century. Despite the Senate's undemocratic structure, it remains an important house of review with many procedures, such as committees that do hold the Executive to account.

The Federalist No.62

James Madison was from Virginia, and was an advocate for one person, one vote for the Senate. Meaning Senate representation should be based on a State's population. In 1776 Virginia was the most powerful state in America, with its only rivals being New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. The smaller states, such as Rhode Island, South Carolina and Maryland were concerned about the larger states running roughshod over them. The US Senate where each state had an equal number of Senators was the compromise. Madison or Hamilton wrote in Federalist No.62;

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient [states having equal representation in the Senate] in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States.

It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defence which it involves in favour of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger.

But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.

This is similar to the concerns of the smaller Australian colonies prior to Federation. New South Wales and Victoria were the two dominant economies and political entities. The smaller states such as Tasmania, South Australia, and even Queensland were concerned about the concentration of NSW and Victorian power in the federal system.

The original Australian Constitution was drafted by Andrew Inglis-Clark . He was a strong admirer of the American Republican system. Clark was also Tasmanian and concerned that his small state would suffer at the hands of federal tyranny driven by the selfish interests of NSW and Victoria. Party discipline in Australia is absolute. American Senators are far more independent in how they represent their electorate, and are not permanently subservient to the party's will. Australian Senators do not behave independently, consequently, the original intent of the Australian Senate was quickly broken.

Henry Higgins, one of the lesser known "bearded men" was concerned that the Australian Senate was undemocratic at its core. He argued;

The only permissible object of any House in a democracy is to get public opinion truly represented and voiced; and this cannot be done when you find that in Australian subjects [citizens] an Australian in Coolgardie is to have nine times the voting power for the Senate that his brother Australian has in Broken Hill; and he may hereafter have twenty, fifty times the voting power. We might as well provide for a house of municipalities in Victoria, in which the city of Melbourne should have the same representation as the shire of Gum-tree Flat.

Higgins was concerned that the provincial thinking of Tasmania and Western Australia would hold NSW and Victoria to ransom in the Senate. This did not eventuate, as party discipline in the Senate quickly became absolute, meaning the Senate voted on party lines, not state lines. The Senate has remained that way ever since.

The Senate Electoral System

Originally the Senate was a first past the post electoral system. This meant that a party which got fifty-one percent of the vote, got all the Senate seats for that state. This meant that parties often had crushing majorities in the Senate. For instance in 1934, three Labor Senators shared the Senate with seven Country Party Senators and twenty-six United Australia Party Senators. In 1946, one Country Party Senator, and two Liberal Party Senators faced thirty-three Labor Senators.

Proportional representation was introduced into the Senate electoral system in 1948. Like all electoral innovations in Australia, it was done in an attempt to entrench incumbents. The Chifley government feared that it would lose its majority in the Senate, and introduced proportional representation to entrench themselves. This has backfired for Labor, since 1951 they have not had a majority in the Senate.

Since 1948, minority interests have had greater representation in the Senate , leading to the balance of power in the Senate being held by the Australian Democrats from 1980 until 2005. This provided a welcome, and necessary check on Executive power without the combative politics of the situation where one major party holds power in the House, while the other holds the numbers in the Senate.

The move to proportional representation in the Senate has provided superior outcomes for the Australian people from what is an inherently undemocratically structured upper-house. In 2005, for the first time in a generation, a major party will hold the majority in the Senate. Many voters under the age of forty-six have never known a Senate without a third party holding the balance of power. For those voters the Senate has been a "House of Review", not an Executive Cabinet "Rubber Stamp".

The Senate Powers

Samuel Griffiths ensured that the Senate had the ability to reject supply bills, but not originate them. Griffiths was the Premier of Queensland when involved in the Constitutional Conventions. He was also strongly provincial, protecting states rights. This continued through his time as Chief Justice where he dismissed the Federal Constitution as having primacy over state independence. It was not until Isaac Isaacs, and the Engineers Case , that state powers became subordinate to the Federal Constitution.

The ability to originate legislation that was not related to supply, and to block supply made the Australian Senate more powerful than many other upper-houses in bicameral systems. For those concerned about "responsible government" and the authority of the Executive Cabinet, this posed issues. But again, the party system, and its ability to enforce party discipline subverted this power. Australian Senators, can, and do hold cabinet positions in the government, and Senators vote along party lines.

When legislation gets blocked through irreconcilable differences between the houses, a double dissolution can be requested by the Prime Minister from the Governor-General. Andrew Bartlett writes ;

The Senate has almost the same power to make laws as the House of Representatives, except that it can not initiate or amend Money Bills. However, it may make suggestions about these Bills. If passed, Money Bills become the laws which allow the government to collect taxes and spend money on policies and programs.

Sometimes the Senate and the House of Representatives cannot reach agreement on the terms of a Bill, which may result in a double dissolution of parliament. This means that the Prime Minister calls upon the Governor-General to disband - or dissolve - both houses of parliament at the same time. A double dissolution is most likely to happen when the Government party or coalition does not command a majority of votes in the Senate.

The Senate has also developed a strong committee system , which is another check and revue on Executive Power. In a Senate that does not have to involve the minority or opposition parties, this system may be weakened. But the structure of the committee's is one of involvement. For instance the rules on committee membership are very inclusive ;

Legislation committees : 3 government, 2 opposition, 1 minority/independent.
Scrutiny of Bills: 3 government, 3 opposition/minority/independent.
Selection of Bills: Government Whip, Opposition Whip, Minority Whips, 2 government, 2 opposition.

The conventions for committee's and their authority comes from the Senate's standing orders. These standing orders have not faced a party majority for some time, and there is no guarantee they will survive intact once a party has a majority. A truism in government is that those in power will act to remove any barrier to their absolute authority. For the current government, the Senate committee system will be an unwanted hindrance . It is likely the government will use its Senate majority to reduce its ability to bring the Executive to account.

cam