Serious Senate reform should address the wider issues of the Senate's role

Second, the budget bills must be seen as a special case. These need to be enacted with greater urgency and certainty than other bills and cannot be delayed for months lest the Government run out of money and face dismissal.

No matter which party is in government, it ought to be able to enact its budget without having to go to an election. In this case, the Howard proposal has merit. Budget bills ought to be able to be enacted at a joint sitting after being twice rejected by the Senate.

Third, there should be fixed terms for both houses. While the term should be set at four years, it may be sensible to give a government some leeway, such as the capacity to call an election up to six months before the set date.

This would reduce the power of governments to manipulate the electoral cycle to their advantage, including using it to threaten the Senate with an early election.

Fourth, all senators should serve four-year terms and not, as is currently the case, double the length of the members of the lower house. Eight years is too long for any parliamentarian to go without seeking re-election.

This change would mean having to choose all senators at each election, rather than only half. It would give some advantage to the minor parties because they would need to get fewer votes to achieve a quota for the election of a senator.

If the Australian people are asked to vote on reform of the Senate, any proposal must balance the Senate's existing strengths against the need for stable and effective government. This cannot be achieved by piecemeal reform, particularly reform that will rightly be seen by the people as serving only the interests of the government of the day.

While there are good arguments for Senate reform, the Prime Minister must rework his plan if we are to avoid wasting tens of millions of dollars on a failed referendum.

Australia's record of constitutional reform, in which only eight out of 44 referendum proposals have been passed, suggests that either of the current options would suffer a crushing defeat.