al member to effectively represent the interests of his region over loyalties to his party.As a check on democracy the upper houses have proven to be quite effective. The introduction of radical or rapidly drafted legislation into law becomes difficult for a government that doesn't hold a majority in both houses. In such a case the upper houses can block the bill or return it to the Lower House for review. It could be argued that having to go through this two-tiered process prevents the knee-jerk reactions of incumbent governments from becoming unwelcome and/or unwieldy laws.A case of the Senate's power being a real impediment to the functioning of Australia's liberal democracy was encountered during the dismissal of the Whitlam Labor government in 1975. As a result of hostile control of the Senate by conservative forces the duly elected government of the day was forced out office in what could be seen as an illegitimate use of the Senates powers. The anti-democratic nature of the house at the time due to the dubious nature of some appointments made to fill casual vacancies calls into question whether the Senate had the right to pursue such a course of action. It even calls into question the necessity and desirability of having such an institution.The Theodore Labor government of Queensland chose to abolish its Legislative Council in 1922 as a response to ongoing and entrenched conservative opposition in that house. It remains the only state to have done so and further cases of this kind of action are unlikely as Upper Houses positions have since been entrenched in most state constitutions, usually by conservative governments. The reforms in Queensland were a start but did not go far enough. To simply rid government of one of its pillars and replace it with nothing is not in the best interests of a modern liberal democracy. A more beneficial approach would involve more sweeping changes:1. The executive should be separated completely fro...
