Three key issues must be addressed to re-establish an upper house.
First, we need to ensure that a new upper house does not mean more elected officials and added costs. Reducing the number of the present 89-member Legislative Assembly (one of the largest lower houses in Australia) by about 35 members to allow a similar number to be the elected to the new upper house is one solution.
Second, an upper house should not be just a mirror image of the existing chamber. Proportional voting with multimember electorates based on three or more regions would overcome this problem. It would provide a bonus of giving regional and minority interests the potential for representation in parliament. This works elsewhere.
Advertisement
Third, the powers of a revived upper house should not be seen as a means of causing deadlocks between the two houses. Improved accountability, not policy gridlock is the prime aim of an upper house. Reforms in other states to overcome this potentially difficult constitutional problem provide guidance on this matter.
The problems of establishing a new upper house are not constitutionally, administratively or even politically insurmountable.
What we need is political will to put the issue on the agenda, a commitment by all parties for improved accountability and an independent process to progress the issue. The people, through a referendum, will do the rest.
Queensland's parliamentary governance no longer matches the state's growing complexity and the demands of an increasingly educated and diverse electorate.
The present unicameral legislature fails to deliver democratic practice, effective citizen participation, regional and minority representation and accountable government. Funds are wasted. Poor decisions keep getting made.
An upper house for Queensland is an idea whose time has come, but it needs to be accompanied by other governance renovations like an independent public service and a realistic assessment on the desired roles and actual capacities of government in Australia's fastest growing state.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
15 posts so far.
About the Authors
Nicholas Aroney is a Fellow of the Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law and Reader in Law at the TC Beirne School of Law, the University of Queensland. He is author of The Constitution of a Federal Commonwealth: The Making and Meaning of the Australian Constitution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) and Freedom of Speech in the Constitution (Sydney: Centre for Independent Studies, 1998).
Dr Scott Prasser has worked on senior policy and research roles in
federal and state governments. His recent publications include:Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries in Australia (2021); The Whitlam Era with David Clune (2022), the edited New directions in royal commission and public inquiries: Do we need them? and The Art of Opposition (2024)reviewing oppositions across Australia and internationally.
reddit this
Del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
StumbleUpon
Nicholas Aroney
Scott Prasser
