I strongly agree with every word written in the article. Pity they come from a politician retiring at the next election.

Stuart Copeland's article only touches the tip of the iceberg.

The major problem with democracy in Queensland is that the newsmedia does not hold the Government to account.

In the past four and a half years since I have moved back to Queensland the Courier Mail has uncritically supported(1) nearly all the major policy decisions of the Bligh Government.

These include: support for the North South Bypass Tunnel, the Airport Link, the Hale Street Bridge and road building in general in the face of community objections, support for the Traveston Dam, the Wyaralong Dam, privatisation, the expansion of mining and, above all, mindless encouragement of population growth, whilst completely failing to acknowledge that most of the problems we face in Queensland have been made worse by population growth (which evidently Stuart Copeland also supports).

The only logical reason that the Government, the Opposition and the Courier Mail all support population growth is to suit developers and land speculators, who perversely manage to gain from this whilst making the circumstances for Queensland as a whole worse. I have written of this in my article "How the Growth Lobby Threatens Australia's Future" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8485&page=0 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8485&page=0

Articles which show how poorly Queenslanders are served by their newsmedia include:

"Brisbane's housing unaffordability crisis spun by ABC to promote property lobby interests" of 23-June-2006 at
http://candobetter.org/node/610

"Courier Mail manipulates reporting of water recycling to demand early election" of 5-Jan-2009 at http://candobetter.org/node/972

"Courier Mail praises Bligh Government's 'solving' of population-growth-driven water crisis of its own making" of 3-Feb-2009 at http://candobetter.org/node/972

---

James Sinnamon,
Independent pro-democracy candidate for Mount Coot-tha

=-=-=

1. The Courier Mail does, at times, capably take on the Queensland Government, and rightly so, but usually only over less critical issues.

It seems to me that the purpose of this is to maintain a facade of objectivity in order to allow it to sell its principle message, that is, support for the pro-corporate, pro-developer, pro-land-speculation and anti-environmental agenda of the Bligh Government.

However, if the Bligh Government is insufficiently pro-big-business for the Courier Mail's liking it will also incur its wrath (see http://candobetter.org/node/342).

Isn't it amazing that not one mention is made in this article of the most sustained and corrupt abuse ever made of this parliamentary structural flaw in Queensland? Could it be that this is because the member for Cunningham is a member of the LNP whose predecessor, the National party under Joe Bjelke Petersen, was the most corrupt, most venal, most anti-democratic administration in this nation's history?

This article is breathtaking in its hypocrisy. Extraordinary what Opposition does to your sense of what is right and proper in a democracy.

Shal,

I must have been reading a different article than what you did. ("It has in the past proven to be unhealthy whichever side of politics has been in power, and is producing bad and arrogant government.")

I agree that the Joe Bjelke Petersen era was corrupt but a lot has changed since then, and a lot still has to change to get greater accountability for parliamentarians. The 'breathtaking' hypocracy you mention I think may have been warranted in the early 90's, but not so now. If people are so critical of the lack of accountability in the 'old days' then surely many would now be able to look past the happenings of two decades ago and objectively say that no matter who is in power, they must be appropriately scrutinised. If one thinks that the current system provides all the accountability needed, then that really is breathtaking.

It is obvious to me that after, for example, the Gordan Nuttal/health incident, the Labor government was extremely selfish, and it is ridiculous to think they could get away with changing legislation (that was designed to keep participants honest) just to keep their Minister clear of charges that did some good in keeping Estimates Committees accountable.

Good article Stuart, it's a pity your boss could not make room for you.

Orange East
No quarrels with your criticism of the current govt.

My beef is with the Nationals having the gall to criticise a system they rorted for all it was worth when it suited them.
That's the hypocrisy. To criticise on the grounds of a structural flaw which they exploited to the full. By all means criticise corruption but don't get on your holier than thou horse and say that the problem is structural when you were guilty of worse practices.

The only thing wrong with Queensland, is that until now, no Federal Government has had the courage to tell them they are a part of the Commonwealth, and Chief Justice Paul de Jersey is an atheist monster, appointed by the National Party, without one honest bone in his body.

If we had a brave and fearless federal Government, they would tell CJ de J, that he and his fellow blackshirts should go back to fascist Italy, and adopt the religion that governed there. Unfortunately, the Federal Liberal Government of Malcolm Fraser liked Blackshirts, and hated Christianity, and when they made a Federal Court, followed the Queensland autocratic model. In truth it is not Queensland where the rot started, its down in cockroach land, in NSW where Mussolini's ideas were first applied on a State wide scale. Its just that the Queensland Bar considered them beneficial.

Government in Queensland would be perfectly alright, if closet atheists would just obey the laws governing the separation of powers: S 51 and 259 of the Supreme Court Act 1995. These honestly applied would make it the best State in Australia.

However the Hells Angels Limousine Gang that passes for a Judiciary and Magistracy in Queensland, make their own Rules. Instead of two Justices of the peace appointed by the Anglican Church, we now have a magistrate appointed by the State Church under the Justices Act. If you are not a member of what passes for the Queen Street Chapter of the Hells Angels, you won’t be appointed a Judge or Magistrate in Queensland.

To keep in good with the authorities, this Renegades Club, refuses to do its appointed job and keep the bastards honest. These renegades throw up their hands in horror when told they really belong to a Commonwealth where there is a written Constitution. Before The Hells Angels Gang took over, Queensland was a wonderful place to live. Now it is a small fascist State governed by an unaccountable and autocratic Club, that has an unbelievable appetite for stolen goods. Other than that it is a great place

As a long-term observer of the Queensland scene (though no longer a participant) I found it interesting to read Stuart Copeland's post.

An expanded committee system with real teeth (on the New Zealand model) would work, provided the party in government played the game and not advantage. That's a tough call.

Copeland points out that in Queensland's case the elephant in the room - or rather, not in the room, since it was expelled in 1922 - is the absence of an upper house of parliament. He also points out that Queensland voters are unlikely to vote for more politicians.

There is a way to create a house of review, though. Cut the lower house by 25 (that shouldn't be difficult: it would make the redrawn electorates bigger and give members more work to do, that's all) and create an upper house - they could even call it the Queensland Senate if the desire remains to be different - of 25 members elected on a state-wide ballot from party lists and independents. Four per cent of the vote would constitute a quota and would get a party (or a independent) one seat, so that should satisfy minority demands. The formula for distributing quotas could be on the same basis as in federal Senate elections.

Upper house elections should be held with lower house elections, preferrably on fixed terms. (The Westminster system is a joke in Australian polities anyway.) No legislation would be passed by the parliament unless endorsed by the upper house, or if necessary by a joint sitting of both houses. No upper house member should be in Executive office. And from a smaller lower house, state government could then field an Executive (Cabinet) that more accurately reflects the size required in second-tier government.

Just an idea for debate.

Shal

Just because he is a member of the LNP, does not mean he cannot criticise the system. In fact, since he is part of the system means he is in the best position to criticise it.

I think it was a genuine attempt to make the system better and he should be applauded for it. Note he could have played politics and link this to lack of accountability in Water management, Hospital etc and he didn't.

I think it is a very valid point he raises, and some of the problems were also shown in the last year of the Howard Government, and shows that a review process, often protects the party from their stupidity.

I think it was a well writen artical

The trouble with most people, and it is promoted by lawyers, is that they have been brainwashed into thinking the only place laws can be made or unmade is in Parliament.

The Universities are the seminaries of this deception. During my time, the power of a Ch III court was never taught to anyone either in politics or law. The words of a Monsignor: Man proposes, God disposes apply.

A Ch III court, from the Australian Constitution, which used to have a representative of the Queen as president, representing God Almighty, and a jury representing Jesus Christ has always had the power to disallow an unjust law. It was once the case that no costs were awarded on either side, until after a jury trial. Lawyers are sick puppies, but since they have infiltrated Parliaments, they have gradually destroyed the Christian system, and introduced the satanic one, where one man judges another. Worship me said Satan, and all this will yours ( everything).

On a website, www.community-law.info is an article called The Judicial Process. It contains extracts from a book of the same name, no longer used as a textbook in Australia, because we cannot have lawyers feeling guilty. It declares the Constitution in the USA and Australia as the paramount law. In a High Court case, Yanner v Eaton, this was upheld, on an application by Rob Hulls, now Victorian Attorney General. He was then a solicitor in Mt Isa, and Yanner was an aboriginal Australian, cleared because he took a crocodile for food, and was protected by the Native Title Act. ( MABO; money available, barristers only)

The Commonwealth has said sorry to the Native Australians; How about a sorry to us whitefellas too. If Menzies in 1953 had not closed the High Court to all except lawyers, his tribal mates, we would have no trouble with a unicameral system in Queensland. Let us hope that our first Queensland Prime Minister un-locks the High Court and Federal Court of Australia and saves the Queensland Government. Almighty God in a Ch III court, will sort out the rubbish.

As a reader of this forum, you have an opportunity to make a real difference in the governance of Queensland and Australia, by simply sending a message to Kevin Rudd. He has a website where you can electronically contact him, and he does respond, unlike his predecessor: and it is here:

http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm

What you have to understand is that Judges and Magistrates are essentially lazy individuals. With their electric personalities, they take the line of least resistance, and do not really work at research, but rely on barristers and solicitors to do their thinking for them. Unlike electricity, they move at the pace of cold molasses, and often take months or years to dispose of a case, that used to take about a week, before they changed the system to make it a money machine for lawyers.

Kevin Rudd is the first non lawyer Prime Minister in a non lawyer dominated government since 1949. Without a built in bias against Christianity, he has an opportunity to make it safe to elect a Labor government, and safe to vote for Anna Bligh, if you think the opposition is hopeless.

On the 25th March 2009, the Commonwealth has an opportunity in the Federal Court, to completely reform the way the Federal Court does business.. If you like simply cut and paste this post into the KR website. The request you should make to KR is this:

Please intervene in the proceedings, for which you are going to receive a S 78B Judiciary Act 1903 Notice and support a request that:
(a) Section 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 be declared invalid.
(b) Order 46 Rule 7A Federal Court Rules be declared invalid.
(c.) That the ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 be given full effect, and the tribunal declared to have power to replace the judgment of any Federal Court Judge who sits without a jury at Commonwealth expense, as he can, with an order that he do so.
(d) Ensure the Commonwealth acts as a Model Litigant

Do this to serve your country in a practical electronically possible way. Viva L’internet

Dovif2

Fair enough. Let's applaud his pro-activeness.
But the article tries to make out that this problem began in 2001. If he was fair dinkum, he would have begun with a major mea culpa which acknowledged his own party's appalling and corrupt history of this kind of behaviour and its active complicity in establishing the kinds of practices he is now deriding.

Copeland strikes me as one of the better ones. Shame there aren't more in both sides of the ranks. Part of the Opposition's problem is a lack of talent, which doesn't give voters sufficient confidence in their ability to govern.

Peter - Christianity has nothing to do with the price of moon pies in Bavaria, however aspects of your critique of the adversarial legal system strike a chord with me. I'm much more enamoured with the inquisitorial model used in places such as Japan and Germany.

Queensland's always seemed like a Cowboy state, with much less by way of accountability. Take the recent Council amalgamations - it was patently clear that they had been secretively planning it for quite some time, you can even look back and see how modifications were made to the Local Government Act to remove referenda on such matters, and this occurred a year or so before the announcement.

The very fact it was done in secrecy does not bode well. Matters with such implications should be out for public debate, not part of shadowy schemes behind closed doors.

Then there's the lack of debate on policy formulation. A series of major decisions keep getting made (think recycled water and other infrastructure announcements) and each time, opponents are railroaded and told that it's a crisis and they must fall in line. Crises they may be, but such crises have been used to devastating effect in the past, to distort accountable government processes.

Interesting article. I don't mind the lack of an upper house in Queensland so much - as so many people say, it lets governments take action without having to bargain with hostile senators. If we reinstated an upper house, I would hope that members would be exclusively independents, rather than party players. This might help to eliminate the "we're not going to let you do this because you're with the ALP" attitude you occasionally see elsewhere.

Shal, I appreciate your concern at the apparent hypocrisy here - while I didn't endure Bjelke Petersen QLD, I have studied it and can't quarrel with the accusations of corruption. It's right there in the public record. I don't think the author is denying that guilt, though. The issue is that, in 2001, the Labor Party gained an enormous responsibility - one that has led them almost beyond accountability. It is in situations like this that the unicameral system falls down. Beattie got cocky, now Bligh is cocky. They do stupid things with little regard for the people of QLD, and they apply band-aid solutions accompanied by press conferences. They know that they don't have to prove themselves, so they've stopped trying. When the margin was smaller, they had a lot more to do.

Oh, so he can write, eh?

Living adjacent to the 'Copo' electorate, in yet another National Party sinecure, I have yet to see this man, or his three pals here, ever do or say anything useful in the town.

The lack of an upper house is no problem at all. Qld is as well or badly run as every other state and terriroty in Australia, marginally less dodgy these days than WA, and most states, including NSW, seem not to be as 'apparentl;y' corrupt as Tasmania.

Now, there is a system we in Qld could aspire to. Not with an upperhouse though, but with multi-member electorates and all else that goes on down there.

The 'umble MHR has far more electors to service than the State MLA does, and does just as bad a job, so we could organise larger electorates, fill them with more plonkers to 'represent' our views, and have a mixture of perspectives, including some Green and some Extreme views (I see Pauline is considering running again).

It's not that the Committees don't work so much as the politicians who don't. They are too 'relaxed and comfortable' in the job.

Poor auld Stuart... the first time he's ever uttered a word, just before he's being chucked out.