In 1992 I met a member of the Victorian upper house. At that stage the upper house met in the evening thus enabling the parliamentarians to work as stocker brokers during the day. Although he was a pleasant fellow he didn't strike me as being interested in reviewing legislation or being representative of the people of this state.

I have always envied Queensland not having this waste of space that is an upper house.

I am in two minds about this issue.

I recognise the argument of the value of a house of review. However, my real life experience in government has been that there are no systems of election that provide "good" answers.

Proportional representation makes for totally bad government with policy having to be watered down to meet the criteria of small groups who often represent a miniscule number of electors. You only need to look at the Greens and Democrats in the Senate or, even worse, Brian Harradine, to see how bad things can become when small groups have the clout to pass legislation or not. The beloved WA Greens whom we fortunately lost used to stand up and talk about what changes they wanted to legislation on behalf of 1/4 of 1% of the Australian electorate. 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 Uppoer 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

Kevi

Does anyone care about this issue, the Queensland Government is and has been for a long time more efficent, less costly, than the other states. If anything the Federal Parliament should adopt our model. No more snouts in the trough, in the Senate, which is only an expensive rubber stamp, at best.

We in Queensland need an Upper House. The crude nature of democracy in this State has been made even worse by the 'Just vote one' campaign instituted by the present government. Effectively the House is elected by a super primitive First Past the Post system. We endured the Jo gerrymander and got rid of that, but there is still no real scrutiny of executive government, and under current arrangements there never will be. It makes no difference which of the major groups wins an election here, the essential result is the same - 4 years of almost unfettered power.

The method of election of an Upper house would need to ensure that the outcome more truly represented the wishes of the people. I am a supporter of the Hare Clark system with Robson Rotation.

Come on Queensland. Wake up.

Don't do it queensland, don't do it. Look at the NSW Legislative Assembly as an example of what the major parties will do to a house of review. Some of the dilemma government's most senior ministers are MLA's, answerable to no one but their fellow party hacks. And the length of sinecure these people get is a disgrace to a so-called democracy. If it has to happen, make it all independents on a stipend and a subsidised bus pass during the minimal sitting days.

Nicholas,
Your argument seems to be that the Qld lower house has severe problems because of its electoral system, so why not institute an upper house with a better electoral system to review and keep a check on the disfunctioning lower house.
You also talk about voters not having an alternative set of voting preferences that they might have with an upper house. With due respect Sir, that part is dumb. Each person has only one political preference. If you vote different parties in either house then the legislation your party in the lower house passes may well be blocked by your party in the upper house and vice versa.
The financial cost and administrative logjam of adding another house does seem to be a rather long way around to address the misrule. Why not just fix the problematic lower house in the first place. Introduce proportional representation to elect members to the one necessary house of parliament. If you want to spend money then increase the number of representatives in the house. A member for every 25,000 people is by nature more democratic than one for every 45,000 people.
If, as some claim, there will be instability with governments always trying to keep their majority in the house then simply do what you already do with your Brisbane City Council. Have the executive (Mayor or Premier) directly elected by the people.

Despite what my learned fellow poster Kevi implies, small parties (in State Houses) don’t have more clout than their true proportion of the electorate’s will. If major parties can’t get legislation through without kowtowing to minor parties then that means that they don’t even have a majority in the first place, so what justifies their legislation? If it is eventually “watered down” to get through then that means that representatives of a majority of the population approved of and passed specific legislation. Isn’t that what democracy is all about

Nicholas, I would tend to go the other way. It's time to rid Australia of the dinosaurs known as state governments. We can't afford the duplication that is a large part of state governments. Look around. We are being told by business to do more with less. Our workplaces are now lean after management culled the herd. Why should politicians and political machinery be immune from change?

A politicised public service, little or no ministerial accountability, lack of efficient basic services, a real fear of FOI and the concentration of power can be adequately handled at a federal level. Why should the states have all the fun.

And parenthetically the advent of the Airbus has plunged me into a melancholy state. The Airbus A380-900 stretch version can carry 656 passengers. Given that our politicians have a penchant for flying I invite posters here at OLO to share a terrifying recurrent nightmare of mine. For some months now I have woken suddenly covered in sweat and clutching teddy. What would happen if, quite unexpectedly, a collection of state and federal ministers were booked to fly on the same Airbus. That Airbus could contain the majority of Queensland MPs together with a reasonable number of federal MPs. If that Airbus crashed the world would be deprived of brilliant minds. Tremendous talent would be lost if those MPs were to perish. Financial markets around the world would be plunged into chaos. People would lose hope. It would take the world a generation to get back on its feet.

We need fewer politicians, not more.

Sage, I agree with you.

I think somebody is scared of Labor being out of power... I'm looking forward to it. The ALP had long desired the destruction of upper houses... let them stew in their own juices without any say in a unicameral parliament just to rub salt into their wounds.

Nicholas

Are you Mad?

We want less not more.

Sage,

I think you have got it wrong. We don't need fewer politicians, we need fewer politicians that are paid. Throughout most of the nineteenth century politicians were not paid at all, and we seem to have had a much better lot that what we have now. I am not suggesting that they be paid nothing. I think that the dole would be a reasonable compensation for politicians that have no other income - after all, they have determined that the dole is the amount necessary for survival. It would also serve to hammer home what people feel about politicians in general. As far as expenses are concerned, this is also easily corrected. If politicians choose to pay for their trips out of their after tax earnings, that's fine. Otherwise thay should travel in the worst seat in the plane. If someone has already booked that seat, the person gets upgraded to the one the politician has bought, and the politician travels in the worst seat. One reason that Mark Latham will always be well remembered in the minds of the people is that he suceeded in reducing politicians superannuation while still in opposition.

I cannot agree with your idea of abolishing the states. What we need is more aggressive state legislation, with an offence carrying the penalty of castration, beheading, etc., etc., in one state, and in another eligible for a large government bounty. As people are entitled to travel between states, we would have people racing for the Queensland frontier, with the police in hot pursuit. Remember that if an offence is not against the law in both states, there is no extradition.

My main concern with the article is that it is discussing the potential benefits of a system of government that cannot come about.

No QLD parliament is going to vote into existence an upper house that can thwart the will of the very people who voted for it.

In principle, an "upper house party" could be formed with a sole policy that consisted of establishing an upper house, and then immediately holding another election (if that's even possible in QLD). In practice, such a party would never be able to gain power.

"If you don't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard may win."

(Approximate quote from one of Douglas Adams' Hithchiker's Guide books).

Sylvia.

To have an upper house or not . . . really it's a question of accountability versus getting things done. Sir Joh (who, by the way, did not invent the gerrymander but benefited greatly from it) certainly got a lot done, but did not have to worry about accountability or review. A lot of what is good about Queensland came from his 'rule', but so does a lot of what is wrong with this state. Similarly, Peter Beattie (whose leadership, coupled with the National Party's political non-existence, prompted me to vote Labor for the first time ever) is getting a lot done but now, as the honeymoon draws to a close, is less interested in whether or not Queenslanders want his party's developments. But will an upper house change that? The federal senate is detached from the needs and desires of Australians - why would a state senate be any different?

I was recently asked to comment on a forthcoming (4 May) paper on this topic by J R Nethercote. In my view the problem is the prevailing poor ethos and standards in Queensland, together with public attitudes of apathy and of expectation that the government will "do something" when they have a problem. I don't think that the low standards of public life in Queensland can be remedied by institutional change - there would first have to be a recognition of prevailing problems and their long term costs. Not much sign of that, and no obvious incentive for the powers-that-be to subject themselves to public interest scrutiny.

I've dealt with other states in my work, and met a number of premiers and state ministers. I think that any state is lucky to have 3-4 good ministers - we haven't had a decent Treasurer since De Lacey - an argument against having so many governments rather than for any particular institutional arrangement.

I can tell you that in the State of NSW cross bench politicians in the Senate are able to bring in ammendments to keep check on the absolute power of the Iemma Government.

The recent Major Development Bill proposed by ALP NSW Iemma Govt. would have removed Councils from approving major developments and give Frank Sartor, Minister for Planning, absolute unfettered powers to alone approve major developments that Councils were hesitant to approve.

Gordon Moyes and Fred Nile met with the deputation of 150 Councils in NSW and drafted ammendments that placed the Mayors of Councils to head the approving body of major developments in their elected area. Without the Senate the ALP Iemma Government would weild absolute power, and Ministers only would be the final authority.

The deputation of Councils got their ammendments approved through the members holding the balance of power in the Senate.

Just give us new states, North, Central and Sth Western Qld and let SEQ Barbie World achieve the cesspit status it seems hellbent on turning itself into. Did the Titanic have an upper house?

Bravo Nick and Perseus

My apprehension was that no one had noticed or cared for the rapid decline since 1998 of age old ethical standards and effective watchdogs over the engine room of Government.

So “successful” has been the rapid erosion in regard for Queenslander’s lawful rights and remedies at the helmsmanship of his Queensland counterpart that Premier Mike Rann noted how easy it would be for him also to govern his State without the bother of an Upper House.

Mr Rann’s recent re election was chiefly due to his central platform of pledging to abolish the South Australian Upper House in this term.

Never mind, Shonga you have little time before your wish list has been fully realised.