The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > An upper house for Queensland? > Comments

An upper house for Queensland? : Comments

By Nicholas Aroney, published 11/4/2006

For over 80 years Queensland has not had an upper house: if we want to improve government accountability now is the time to debate if we need one.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
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.
Posted by Sage, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 7:28:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sage, I agree with you.
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 7:50:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by DFXK, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 7:58:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nicholas

Are you Mad?

We want less not more.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 8:16:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by plerdsus, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 8:41:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 10:23:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy