Nick Minchin doesn’t seem like a fool to me. So why is he the latest to push the idea of reducing the size of the Senate in the hope of securing majority control? This Fin Report (subscription required) has

Federal Finance Minister Nick Minchin has suggested reducing the size of the Senate to make it easier for the coalition to get controversial pieces of legislation through the upper house.

A smaller Senate, and even more, a return to the winner-takes-all system that prevailed for the first few decades after Federation would guarantee that a major party would control the Senate, but this is a lousy idea for a government to proposed. It’s pretty much an even-money bet that the opposition, and not the government, would be the party controlling the Senate.

Whatever complaints Minchin may have about the current Senate, it’s nothing to the situation that previaled last time we had an Opposition-controlled Senate (between 1972 and 1975). Apart from twice forcing the Whitlam government to elections by blocking or threatening to block supply, the Senate was routinely obstructionist to an extent that makes the frustrations Minchin is experiencing seem like fleabites.

Why then is Minchin pushing the idea? In general, proposals to strengthen the executive come from governments that have been in office too long, and forget they will one day be in Opposition. This proposal actually has more dangers for governments than for oppositions, but I suspect it derives from the same mindset.