Only when there is a second chamber possessing near-equal powers to the first can a government be confronted by the powers and resources of a house of parliament over which it does not have decisive control. Three key issues must be addressed in order to re-establish an upper house in Queensland.
First, electoral realities dictate the need to ensure that a new upper house does not mean more elected officials and added costs. Even though there are good design reasons to maintain a reasonably high proportion of members of parliament compared to the population on one hand and the size of the ministry on the other, a second chamber which meant an increase in the total number of “politicians” would be doomed to failure if such a proposal was put to the people at a referendum.
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 elected to the new upper house is one possible solution.
Advertisement
Second, an upper house should not be a mirror image of the existing lower house chamber. Proportional voting with multimember electorates based on three or more regions would overcome this problem. Such an approach would provide an added bonus of giving regional and minority interests the potential for representation in parliament.
Third, the powers of a revived upper house should not be seen as causing deadlocks between the two houses. Improved accountability, not policy gridlock, should be the prime aim of a new upper house. Reforms in Victoria to overcome this potentially difficult constitutional problem provide guidance on this matter.
The problems of establishing an 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 the parties to improve accountability and an independent process to progress the issue. The people through a referendum will do the rest.
The issue is not whether Queensland should have an upper house, but how and when it should be introduced.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
6 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
