Oh come on Nick. This is just repackaging what you wrote the other month. Is there some reason you keep failing to address the issues I raised then? For your information, I repeat them here.

The problem is the systems of election to upper houses. Proportional representation makes for totally bad government.

To see just how bad things can be, remember Dee Margetts. Dee came from the WA Greens whom we fortunately lost in a subsequent election. Our Dee used to stand up and insist on changes she wanted made to various legislation - all on behalf of the less than 0.25% (that's 1/4 of 1%) of the Australian electorate that she represented. We still have Bob Brown who represents about the same. Steve Bracks is absolutely insane to choose to inflict this travesty on the Victorian electorate without even a referendum.

Direct election simply tends to mirror in the upper house what is in the lower house. Again, looking at the Senate, how many people take the time or have the discernment to vote below the line to rank candidates in the large type of electorates that Upper Houses have. Most people will simply vote above the line for whichever hacks the factions of the major parties have approved.

Given that we constantly complain about major parties not legislating for needs beyond the next election, there is a counter argument for the value of one party dominating the Parliament for some time. Although I can't credit Beattie for taking advantage of his majorities to push through reform of health and other areas when he should have done, nevertheless a system where a Premier needs to negotiate with what Keating liked to call "unrepresentative swill" is far from perfect as well.

Regards

Kevin

Scott & Nick, you say that "The problems of establishing a new upper house are not ... politically insurmountable.

What we need is political will to put the issue on the agenda, a commitment by all parties for improved accountability and an independent process to progress the issue. The people, through a referendum, will do the rest."

I can not conceive of Queensland politicians supporting any measures which increase their acountability or hamper their ability to pursue bad, sectional interest, policy. Nor, sadly, do I see much demand for such measures in the electorate. Dream on.

We don't need an upper House in Queensland. We don't need any upper houses anywhere. The bicameral or 2 house system began with the idea of a 'people's house' (House of Representatives/Legislative Assembly) and a house for the aristocracy and merchants (House of Lords/Senate/Legislative Council). Such a notion is completely anachronistic. Should an upper house be modelled on more democratic lines, it becomes merely another set of politicians voting on party lines, similar to the lower house, therefore redundant. Any attempt to make it different to the lower house such as through state representation in the Senate produces a distorted and unrepresentative makeup. Proportional representation, as pointed out by Kevin, also produces distortions. The NSW Upper House is enough evidence of this, with people being elected on a 1% or less primary vote and a share of preferences. These unrepresentative minnows sometimes end up holding the balance of power, which was clearly not the intention of the electorate. The major parties stack the upper houses with party hacks who, with little to do, turn to overseas junkets, Machiavellian political machinations, or booze for diversion during their 6-8 year terms before commencing a post parliament career on full pension.

Do away with all redundant, amachronistic, upper houses I say!

Aftre very long & careful thought, I can not think of anything we need less than an upper house.
It gives us government of the majority, by the minority. When you think minority, think long haired, radical ratbag, fringe.
Names like Brown come to mind.

Guys

Firstly it won't happen.

Secondly your assertion

'Queensland's weak unicameral parliamentary system has encouraged a lack of ministerial responsibility, political party dominance in public service appointments and secrecy in decision making.

These issues lie at the heart of the state's hospitals, childcare and energy scandals.'

That is simply wrong.

The scandals have been bought about by wasteful spending, mismanagement and lack of leadership. The fault lies squarely at the feet of Beattie and the inept bunch of long serving nohopers that form most of his cabinet.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the system of governance.

You want proof? Take a look at NSW where the problems are just as rife and in some cases much worse. NSW should have, because of numbers, a more effective opposition and there is an Upper House.

Nice try, but most people in Queensland would laugh at your excuse for Beattie's impotence.

Representation is either accurate and proportional or it isn't. The only way an upper house can be a check on the lower house is if it has a different representation, but once again, representation is either accurate and proportional or it isn't, so a different representation would mean that one house must be incorrectly represented. Needless to say, the concept of a bicameral legislature where both are intended to be a representation of the voters is moronic.

What is needed is a truly proportionally representative unicameral legislature, where a candidate or party who has received 1% of the votes would have 1% of the voting power in parliament and a candidate or party who has received 40% of the votes would have 40% of the voting power in parliament.

Until this happens, we cannot say we have a truly representative government.