Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo
Further context around that required though
It was axed because it was an un-elected house of parliament, who has the final say on any legislation introduced by the legislative assembly, entirely appointed by their governor, rather than appointed by the vote of Queenslanders, and it was usually given to people from wealthy families, and half the people never turned up anyway.
If people think Victoria's upper house is an absolute clown show, imagine what it would be like if we didn't even have a say and it was appointed by our governor (who is chosen by our premier) 
I'd rather have the upper house, but if we can't elect who sits in it then they can GAGF and it can disappear like QLD.
Though if I was Victoria's premier you bet your *** I'd be pushing for QLD's old legislative council, first thing I'd do is pick a governor on the proviso they stack the upper house with people who will do what I say.
Governor is a pretty sweet gig, you get paid $485,000/year to do ceremonial shit, get an office and staff, a residence in amongst Kings Domain and no one knows who you are or what you actually do. |
Fair enough - though if the government of the day was really interested in fairness, why not change the system from one of appointed representatives to elected members? My home state of Victoria first had a Legislative Council which was split between appointed and elected members, but then transitioned to being a wholly elected chamber before Federation. Queensland was the last holdout at the time, by the 1920s I believe all other Legislative Councils had elected members.
Of course, the issue would be that even elected members may vote contrary to the Assembly's wishes...
They actually did it in a really nasty way, they first tried to abolish by referendum but that was resoundingly voted against. Then they increased the size of the chamber by 14, and what do you know, all the appointments were Labor members and they all happened to vote themselves out of existence a moment later