One point that hasn’t been noted in the current debate over reform* of the Senate is that there is no need at all for the major parties to secure a constitutional change. If they think that upper houses are too obstructive, they need only agree not to oppose each others’ legislation, whenever this has an appropriate mandate. The minority parties could do nothing to stop the operation of such a convention.
Howard could show his good faith by instructing the Liberals in the Western Australian Upper House to pass legislation for a one-vote, one-value electoral system, something for which the Gallop government has a clear mandate and which is, in any case, a basic requirement of democracy.
Then again, pigs could fly, given wings and an appropriate power-to-weight ratio.
*As always, I use this term to mean “change in form”, not “change for the better”.
John Quiggin 
The real purpose of the ‘reform’ debate is to take attention away from the real issues which are paying more taxes and receiving less services.
We have a huge surplus (which if it is a surprise shows very poor management skills) brought about by imposing productivity gains against every government program for the last few years, by concentrating on outputs and outcomes rather than true cost of service delivery, through relying on the charity corporates to provide services and by cutting back on the areas of the public service which used to serve the public.
No wonder that the effort is on ‘reforming’ the senate – this is the body that has consistently pointed out or tried to prevent this constant erosion in what the public can expect for its tax dollar.
“…a one-vote, one-value electoral system… is, in any case, a basic requirement of democracy.”
Oh no it isn’t. If nothing else, Arrow’s theorem shows us that there is no such thing as a one size fits all approach to democracy, but in any case we can see that our own particular case isn’t that simplistic: what is “one value” anyway? doesn’t this rule out cumulative voting by insisting on single votes? aren’t states also entities for the purposes of our federal system, bringing out a different aspect of national identity than individual representation, and wouldn’t they be further sidelined by a single approach? etcetera etcetera etcetera.
Who would want one-vote one-value in the Senate anyway?