Alan Ramsey in an op-ed entitled; "Abolish the Senate? The no's have it" writes a powerful and bold piece - bolstered by the words of the "Big Man" himself, Jack Lang - on abolishing the Senate at the federal level and reducing parliament to a unicameral system. Queensland is a unicameral system and those that lived under Joh's reign might have a different opinion on the usefulness of the unicameral system.

Has the Senate outlived its usefulness? Is it a house of review or obstruction? Should it be reformed? Or as Meg Lees suggested in 1999 , should the House of Representatives be reformed instead?

Poll : Abolish the Senate?

Jack Lang

The closest Australia came to Civil War was in the 1930's when the Jack Lang NSW Government faced off against the Joseph Lyons Federal Government over the issue of loan repayments and interest. Federal government in its ongoing anti-federalism of sticking its fingers into state responsibilities had under-written state loans. When Jack Lang proclaimed that the workers shouldn't have to suffer for the failure of the banks and refused to pay any loans to London until the interest rates and terms were renegotiated.

This set Lyons directly against Lang as the federal government was now responsible for paying any defaults. It became a fight of capital vs labour, of bankers vs workers and federal vs state. Lyons decided to tax for NSW and collect the money that way, but Lang had hidden the tax rolls and the state's money. While Lang and Lyons were duking it out, militia were being raised across the state to support either the NSW government or Federal government. The Lighthorse was moved to outside of Canberra, and the NSW Police Force armed itself with rifles and steel helmets to repel any military attack on Sydney by the Federal government.

Ultimately Sir Phillip Game, the hapless Governor of NSW, sacked Jack Lang. Like Gough Whitlam forty years later, Lang went quietly with the words that he was a free man as the "bastards" had sacked him. Lang could have said no, refused to recognize Game's authority - and the Civil War would have been on.

The Labor Platform and the Senate

Up until the 1970's a central component of the Labor Platform had been the abolition of the Senate. I am not certain why, it appears that the Senate was seen as not representing the will of the people, and as Ramsey levels against it, is place for politicians to do nothing, get payed and pick up pensions. Even though the Australian Senate has representation based on states, it is still popularly elected. The voters do get to say who represents them in the Senate.

The other aspect I don't understand is, since Don Chip broke off and formed the Australian Democrats, the Australian voters have chosen to have third parties act as a brake and ensure the Senate is a house of review. In my opinion this is an important function as the executive and legislative are so poorly (as in not) separated in the Westminster system. Having a unicameral system only reduced the blockages to the executive wielding absolute power, which is not a good for liberty.

The only state where the Labor party got to enact their platform was Queensland. Which remains the only unicameral state, though the Northern Territory and A.C.T have unicameral systems as well. The Queensland members of SSR may want to comment on the effect of a unicameral parliament when Joh Bjelke-Peterson gerrymandered the state.

Lang and Ramsey on the Senate

Ramsey often uses primary sources to bolster his op-ed arguments, making him somewhat unique in the Australian op-ed media. He uses the words of Jack Lang to describe how even fifty years ago the failure of state representation in the Senate was apparent. The state representation having been c-opted by the party political machines.

The senate is a constitutional anachronism. It has outlived its purpose. There is no reason why it should survive. Its history has been one of progressive futility. Its membership has become a form of luxury pension. Any major political organisation that desires to pension off any of its officers will only have to endorse him as a senate candidate to secure his election and qualify him for a pension.

The senate was primarily intended [by the founders of Federation] to safeguard states' rights. It was the house of compromise. It was to prevent the larger states from squeezing the smaller states. It was to balance representation in the legislative machinery. It was to reconcile differences between the states on such problems as protection and free trade.

As such, it served a very useful purpose in the early days of Federation. But that purpose passed rapidly. Once Federation became an established reality, it became apparent the state governments had quite separate functions. The senate thereafter rapidly became a party chamber, not a chamber for state rights. When did its members ever vote on state allegiance, and not in accordance with party allegiance? When have the four smaller states ever found it necessary to combine against the two larger states?

I am not sure why Australia chose the Washington style of Senate, Andrew Ingliss Clark - who drafted the first Australian constitution - was from Tasmania and an avid believer in the Washington system. As Tasmania's Attorney General he was also unashamed in representing Tasmania's interests in the creation of Australian Federalism.

Lang's charge that the Senate does not represent state's rights is absolutely true. The Australian Senate also does not have the power to create bills as the US Senate does either, which is a good thing in my opinion. But Ramsey overlooks what the Australian Senate had become for twenty years - a house of review courtesy of the third parties - and in particular the Australian Democrats.

House of Review Or Obstruction?

Governments that have to deal with a Senate that has a third party as the controlling power wheel out the rhetoric of "hostile senate" even if it is not. For the many years the Democrats controlled the balance of votes in the Senate they were more than reasonable. A 1999 speech by Meg Lees could be seen as a counter-argument to Ramsey and Lang contains;

Despite what Mr Howard and his ministers constantly claim, it is not a 'hostile' Senate. I am the first to admit, however, that the Coalition spin doctors have been very successful in building a strong public perception that the Senate is `hostile'. They have done this through highly disciplined repetition and they started on day one of John Howard's administration.

Even senior political journalists who, frankly, should know better, quite happily pepper their articles with the adjective "hostile" without stopping to think if it's true.

The simple, undeniable fact is that the Senate has passed all but two bills during the Howard years, and this is in line with the historical average. Hardly evidence of 'hostility'.

I have never known in my non-childhood years Australian Federal Senate that did not have a third party as the balance of power. Since the Australian electorate has given the Howard Government a clear majority in the Senate, my generation will be able to view whether a government controlled Senate or a Third Party controlled Senate is better for liberty and democracy.

State Representation

I do not believe the Senate should be abolished. Like the "dissolve the states" rhetoric, I think a unicameral parliament is weaker in protecting individual liberties and putting a brake on repugnant legislation that can stem from the executive. The Lees speech quotes Harry Evans;

Governments always want to remove any obstacles to their power, and the more power they've got, the more they try to remove the residual obstacles. You've got the Victorian government dismantling the Auditor-General, for example. It's got a majority in both Houses, but it's not willing to put up with even that residual check. Governments just naturally drive for absolute power, and people just have to be awake to that and resist it, because unless you have checks on power then you go down the slippery slope.

I agree, and if it was me, I would be putting Ratifiers between Parliament and the Governor-General so that it would have to face the weight of statistical voter view before being able to be signed into law. I don't trust the House of Representatives, and I don't trust the Senate either. But I trust both more if they are both involved in the legislative process.

If there is to be reform in the Senate it is in the "one person one vote" change. Lang is correct the Senate is a party vehicle not for states. James Madison wanted the United States Senate to be "one person, one vote" but the smaller colonies distrusted Virginian and Yankee power. One benefit of the current system is that there is no gerry-mandering, but the downside outweighs the benefits.

The Senate also needs the powerful forms of committees that the US system has, as a check on the Executive embedded in the House of Representatives. This may succeed in giving the Senators more independence, as well allowing the Australian voters the chance to vote for individuals who perform well in that task. For this to occur there will also need to be a ban on Senators serving in the Executive Cabinet. Which would be a good change as well.

cam