During a debate on Seanad reform, I said: I welcome the Minister of State and this debate. The concept is good but I have some reservations that it could mean that the Seanad could become a giant committee. We have to differentiate ourselves from a committee system...

There is an obvious appetite for more engagement with the general public and that is what the motion is trying to achieve. In terms of this, perhaps a better way of doing it would be to have a petitions committee like in the US or European Parliament. This would be a committee to which any citizen could suggest changes in legislation. If a suggested change is considered to have merit it would go initially to the Seanad, become a Bill and eventually go to the Dail. This would mean that every citizen would have the opportunity to change the law. I understand that the petitions committee has been a success in the Scottish Parliament.

I refer to the Australian Senate. We should take an international view when considering how to best reform the Seanad. The Canadians are currently looking at reforming their Senate and have examined the Australian Senate. The Australian Senate has been mentioned in the UK as a model to reform the House of Lords. In Australia, the Senate takes a very active role and the government of the day has very seldom had a majority in the Senate. This means that the opposition and other minor parties can make great progress in scrutinizing government operations.

It is interesting to read the recent comparison of the Seanad and the Australian Senate by Dr. Liam Weeks of UCC . He identified three main flaws with the Seanad: it is indirectly elected; the Taoiseach appoints eleven Members, thus ensuring a majority for the Government; and it has no real powers.

On the other hand, the Australian Senate is wholly different and is probably the third most powerful upper house in the world. Its 76 members are elected by the same method used in the Seanad, namely the single transferable vote. However, as many have argued for, the vote is open to all adults and is not limited to politicians and university graduates.

Dr. Weeks says that being elected under a form of PR not only gives the upper house a distinct identity, compared to the lower Australian house which is elected by STV in single seat constituencies, it also ensures a more balanced representation than in the lower house, allowing for a greater range of voices to be heard. Not only that, but the lifetime of the Seanad is entirely dependent on the Dáil which means that it is difficult for the Upper House to carve out a separate and distinct existence.

In Australia, half of the Senators are elected between general elections in a staggered format. It is interesting and could be something that we consider in addition to holding elections for both houses on the same day to ensure that the House is not a retirement home for failed Deputies. Also, each state in Australia elects the same number of Senators, similar to the United States.

In Ireland, the Government almost always has a majority in the Seanad. However, the opposite is the case in Australia and the ability of the upper house there to hold the government to account and even frustrate it is very much supported as a crucial component of the Australian parliamentary system of checks and balances. Since the governing party in Australia rarely has a majority in the Senate, its legislation sometimes gets cooled by the upper house.

Consequently, the government cannot ride roughshod over parliament and guillotine legislation as can happen in the Dáil. Instead it may have to engage in a consultative process. The end result means that there is better policy that feeds off the input of those in parliament, not just ministers in government. This is the sort of system that we should strive towards.

This diversity in the upper house is one of the vital factors in having a more effective Seanad. We have enlarged that to some degree with the appointment of different voices by the Taoiseach to the House but we must go further. I welcome the discussion and by implementing some of the measures I have mentioned we can make this House a worthy and even more effective part of the democratic process. I appreciate the opportunity to debate this matter.

For a full record of the debate, please click here