Saturday, 24 March 2012

Arguments for an Upper House of Parliament

Contrary to other editions, today's Saturday Age contained a letter to the editor that is worth considering:
Queensland voters today may deliver electoral devastation not only to the ALP, but to significant voices of opposition - as the state continues without its upper house. Yet the major parties refuse to restore that second chamber of Parliament, which was abolished in 1922.

Upper houses accommodate significant smaller and opposing voices who can restrain government. They promote accountability, unhurried consideration and better public consultation.

Family First, One Nation, the Greens and the Australian Party want to restore the Queensland Legislative Council - but they may not gain any representation under existing arrangements.

David d'Lima, Sturt, South Australia

1 comment:

David Votoupal said...

It depends on what kind of PR system would be used. Victoria's upper house reform has been sufficient for the DLP to hold a seat for one term. In a theoretical Queensland upper house, the Greens, Katter's Australian Party and even Family First (based on its stronger showing in parts of SEQ) might win seats.

While I traditionally lean Liberal, I have become increasingly disillusioned with the major parties because they've lost touch with core constituents, and are loathe to stop the erosion of values, culture, industry, job security and livelihoods, even more acute in outer suburban and rural areas. Hence the Australian Party, DLP, CDP and Family First are more likely to get my vote, and the next federal election may well be the first I will not be backing either of the major parties because they don't deserve it!