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.