100 years ago today, Queensland’s Upper House was abolished

The trade-off: fewer politicians on the dole vs. executives that can get away with almost anything.

This entry was posted in History, State politics. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to 100 years ago today, Queensland’s Upper House was abolished

  1. HGS says:

    A well functioning upper house is essential for improved (slightly better) governance.
    Why pay them? Free lunch and a scooter seems over payment.

  2. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “A well functioning upper house is essential for improved (slightly better) governance.”

    Really? I agree it should but this is not what I see in Australia in 2022. Here’s a current example that contradicts your statement, the current Victorian upper house, filled with sinister far-left freaks such as a Fiona Patten and Andy Meddick. All they’ve done is use their power in the upper house to legitimise Dan’s totalitarianism as well as push their own far-left legislation through, by making deals with Dan and his government.

  3. Lee says:

    Those were exactly my thoughts before you posted, Cassie.
    I would add Green Samantha Ratnam to your list.
    Is any party more ironically named than far-leftist Patten’s so-called Reason Party?
    I suppose the current U.S. Democrat Party.

  4. C.L. says:

    In the old Legislative Council in Queensland, rural interests tended to dominate and frustrate Labor’s agenda. That’s why Labor’s so-called Suicide Squad voted the House out of existence when the party did attain a majority.

    It’s a tough one. Cassie’s point is well made. If brought back to life like a woolly mammoth, the Queensland upper house would become another expensive club for a self-enriching elite.

    Unless… it was constituted to electorally counterbalance the south-east corner.

    Let’s say Brisbane, South Coast, the Far North, North, North-West, South-West, Central Queensland each had five representatives. That’s 35 councilors. Using the Commonwealth Constitution as a model, let’s also say if the Upper House rejects a bill, it can be re-introduced after the effluxion of a stipulated period; if rejected again (or passed with amendments to which the lower house will not agree ), a joint sitting of the houses can vote on the bill.

    That’s a fair whack of accountability, a lot of noise-making power, doesn’t disrupt the customary seniority of the lower house and would distribute power more evenly.

    While we’re at it, a former member of one house cannot be elected later to the other and nobody may serve more than three terms.

  5. NoFixedAddress says:

    I like your thinking C.L.

  6. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    In theory this means whenever the Right gets in (usually after a Labor government gets so rancid they are booted over the horizon) they should be able to clean house.

    Unfortunately, though, whenever the Right wins government they wimp it.

    Crush your enemies, drive them before you and hear the lamentation of their qwerties.

  7. Bluey says:

    Bruce of Newcastle says:
    23 March, 2022 at 8:29 pm
    In theory this means whenever the Right gets in (usually after a Labor government gets so rancid they are booted over the horizon) they should be able to clean house.

    Unfortunately, though, whenever the Right wins government they wimp it.

    Crush your enemies, drive them before you and hear the lamentation of their qwerties.

    The problem is electing conservatives, rather than right wing. Conservatives are worthless. They will trip over themselves to apologise at the hint of controversy.

  8. Lee says:

    The problem is electing conservatives, rather than right wing. Conservatives are worthless. They will trip over themselves to apologise at the hint of controversy.

    In my opinion most current day Libs aren’t even conservatives, but left-of-centre or even worse, including the PM and perhaps most state Liberal leaders, whether premier or not.
    They deserve electoral oblivion; unfortunately then we will get a Labor/Green unholy alliance.

  9. Bluey says:

    Lee, that’s true. I tend to explain our political parties as left (Liberals), far left(Labor), and extreme left(greens). People complaining about the Liberals being right wing clearly don’t look overseas at all.

  10. Not Trampis says:

    If a leader or a government goes overboard the voters have the last word as one Campbell Newman found out.
    Landslides are not exactly rare in QLD either.

    This is one of the most stupid assertions you have ever made and that is saying something.

  11. Boambee John says:

    This is one of the most stupid assertions you have ever made and that is saying something.

    Written by one of Australia’s greatest experts in making stupid assertions.

  12. C.L. says:

    This is one of the most stupid assertions you have ever made and that is saying something.

    You don’t seem to understand the Washminster system, Homer – not surprisingly.
    Bicameral legislatures are meant to bake accountability into governance. The idea is not to subject voters to tyranny or incompetence that can only be ameliorated every three, four or five years.

  13. twostix says:

    All they’ve done is use their power in the upper house to legitimise Dan’s totalitarianism as well as push their own far-left legislation through, by making deals with Dan and his government.

    The counter point is the NSW upper house which under Latham and the cross benchers influence has become quite powerful and is doing a reasonable job of holding the government to account.

    As we’ve seen over the last two years, any system is only as good as the people and the culture of the people who operate in that system. Parliament, uni or bicameral, Republic, pure democracy, absolute monarchy, if the people inside the system – including the electorate, are degenerate retards, materialist secularist air heads or hysterical child-like superstitious dumbos it’s not really going to stop them do what they will.

  14. Boambee John says:

    You don’t seem to understand the Washminster system, Homer

    There is much that Non Mentis doesn’t understand. Being totally mindless is probably a major part of his problem.

  15. Boambee John says:

    CL

    Given that Non Mentis is defending the Queensland system, I wonder how much he is following a lead from Steve from Brisbane?

  16. twostix says:

    One of the things about the QLD system is how exposed the government is to the public’s opinion on a daily basis. It does seem more responsive to media campaigns and daily public opinion than the more entrenched, insulated multi-layer systems down south – for better and worse.

    It could be the case that without an upper house to provide it with external “legitimacy” and also simply a larger “gang” in numbers to find cover and support in when negative public sentiment arrives, the government feels more exposed. It’s essentially out there on its own, instead of being able to smear its responsibilities and actions across two whole institutions – one of which largely exists to farcically investigate and clear its bad behaviour as upper houses so often seem to end up doing.

  17. Not Trampis says:

    CL what in the hell has an upper house has to do with with the Westminster system.
    please elaborate but I doubt if you can or will.

    The point is voters can easily get rid of governments that try and get away with anything as history attests.
    If you were not so damn lazy and ignorant you would know that

  18. C.L. says:

    The point is voters can easily get rid of governments that try and get away with anything as history attests.

    This just in: Homer finally endorses Malcolm Fraser and the 1975 election.
    Well done.

    But no other jurisdiction in the Washminster world has ever abolished an upper house – except Queensland.

  19. twostix says:

    The point is voters can easily get rid of governments that try and get away with anything as history attests.

    Fixed four year terms since 2016, means no, we can’t.

    Four year dictatorships require heavy oversight.

  20. Unicameral government: democracy gooder and harder.

  21. Boambee John says:

    twostix

    Not sure if Non Mentis is aware of the number of “fixed four year” parliaments we have in Australia. The last Labor government in NSW survived a couple of extra years purely because they couldn’t be forced to an election.

  22. C.L. says:

    Four year dictatorships require heavy oversight.

    The key point.
    As I said above, accountability has to be functioning during a term, not merely exercised at the end of a term. The latter has NEVER been the constitutional thinking in any Washminster jurisdiction.

  23. Lee says:

    You don’t seem to understand the Washminster system, Homer – not surprisingly.

    Missing or ignoring the point entirely is one of his key characteristics.

  24. Lee says:

    But no other jurisdiction in the Washminster world has ever abolished an upper house – except Queensland.

    I am unsure whether NZ has ever had an upper house, but it certainly doesn’t now.
    Which many New Zealanders are no doubt regretting at this time.

  25. Not Trampis says:

    so we have it CL cannot even answer how an upper house is part of the Westminister system.
    What this has to with the 1975 dismissal no one knows CL is obviously on the magic mushies again. only He can

    Still waiting for your answer.

    QLd is a dictatorship is it. Funny why inquiries are announced. Why is that. do deplorables ever think before they write.
    Obviously not.

    to the complete idiot the last ALP government went to the polls when it had to and got deservedly thrashed. In NSW we know exactly when elections will be unless the government loses support in parliament. That statement was peak stupid.
    There are select committees in QLD. what do you think they do.

  26. twostix says:

    Trampis is in favour of four year elected dictatorships.

    We get it.

    Looking forward to the next Newman government. Good luck!

  27. Boambee John says:

    What this has to with the 1975 dismissal no one knows CL is obviously on the magic mushies again. only He can

    For the information of the incredibly ill-informed Non Mentis, blocking the Budget in the Senate was a key element of the Dismissal.

    The rest of his drivel is the usual confused nonsense, detached from reality.

  28. Rockdoctor says:

    Abolished by Red Ted.

    Cassie, the lack of constitutional protection behind referenda or legislative ringfencing has allowed the Vic ALP to tweak the Senate there to their favour, Bracks instigated after years of complaint by left parties that the country had too much sway (which in fairness probably wasn’t unfounded). Then in 2006 they tweaked it further allowing proportional voting which is why the gang of 3 imbeciles have a seat at the table. I believe Sneakers has embarked on the same path in WA.

    As for Queensland, as much as I hate Senates at times the lack of oversight of nearly 30 years of wall to wall ALP governments and malfeasance is insightful. Sir Joe’s government got caught out in the end but the ALP have carrying on and getting away largely unscathed till recently anyway. Also yes 4 year fixed terms don’t help but the LNP inexplicably supported this so called reform.

  29. Entropy says:

    my proposal:
    the only two roles of the upper house is to consider and vote on Bills passed by the lower house, and senate estimates once a year. No other function can be performed by a senator. There are no committees.

    Seven regions, SEQ, SWQ, CQ, WQ, TQ, FNQ, NWQ

    No popular election. Two senators per region, selected by sortition of those over 60. At the sixtieth birthday the lucky potential senator gets a notification of ballot they can refuse. Otherwise they end up with a ball with their number on it in the barrel.

    A single five year term. Each senator can have a secretary, and the senate staff are seconded from line agencies for a maximum two years. no mandarins.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.