Unrepresentative swill? An unabashed defence of the Australian Senate

Abstract

This paper argues against the abolition of the Australian Senate. The Senate has endured decades of harsh criticism, exemplified by Paul Keating’s label of ‘unrepresentative swill’. Yet the institution continues to serve a number of useful purposes. Firstly, it enforces the strict horizontal separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. Secondly, it serves as a state’s house. That is, the Senate protects the rights of less populous states from the tyranny of the majority. In doing so, the chamber upholds Australia’s federalist system. Finally, the Senate functions as a house of review to scrutinise hurried or reckless legislation in an auxiliary capacity. This paper concedes that the Senate in its current form is a flawed institution. As such, two packages of reforms are proposed. Firstly, senatorial terms may be reformed in order to reduce the incidence of rubber-stamping of legislation. Secondly, new states may be formed to reduce the population inequalities of Senate electorates while upholding the federalist system.