Queensland election

Watching TV last night, I was struck by the deluge of publicly funded government propaganda ads. Today, the reason was revealed as LNP Premier Campbell Newman called an election for 31 January, running several months short of a full term. Most insider comment seems to view this is a clever move, catching the Opposition off-guard and so on. My view would be that they are more likely to lose votes from people who expect a holiday from politics at this time of year.

139 thoughts on “Queensland election

  1. @Uncle Milton

    Well I would describe Martin Ferguson as a capitalists’ stooge. That’s all he has ever done at least since first entering parliament: act for capitalist interests.

    From the ABC News, “Labor ex-minister Martin Ferguson labels WA party’s call for his ALP expulsion a ‘put-up job'” – Updated 20 May 2014, 9:09pm.

    “The union argues Mr Ferguson breached ministerial ethics by joining the advisory board of a key gas lobby group just months after retiring from politics.

    Mr Ferguson, who now chairs an advisory board for the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), has previously called for both unions and workplace laws to change in order to address rising unemployment and boost productivity.

    Mr Ferguson and the WA branch of the maritime union have been embroiled in a public dispute, with the former minister calling the MUA a “job-killing” and “rogue” union earlier this year.

    He said unless the unions were tackled and excessive wages reduced, more Australian jobs would go offshore.” – ABC News.

    So, we see Martin Ferguson pushing the myth that good wages reduce employment. Good wages actually create more employment via the new spending adding to aggregate demand. Where you are in direct competition with cheap overseas labour, good wages can drive jobs off-shore. This is true but a different effect with capitalists using global wage arbitrage to reduce costs and to depress global wages. There are ways to resist this too but that is OT.

    In the case of local resources, the argument about driving jobs offhsore is absurd. The jobs can only occur at the resource site on Australian territory. If it is a good resource it will be wanted sooner or later. Keeping it unmined will only increase its value as all resources become scarcer. If it is a fossil fuel then leaving it in the ground is a better option anyway to prevent AGW. We would be better off investing in solar and wind power than fossil fuels. Martin Ferguson is a fossil fool for fossil fuel.

  2. J-D,

    “I wrote that the King used to put legislative proposals to Parliament. Do you disagree with that?”

    I thought you were saying that was the only way legislation used to get made – by the king putting forth proposals to the parliament . I was disagreeing it was the sole way – but if you just meant the king would sometimes put a legislative proposal to the parliament – I agree that likely would have happened betimes.

    I think the king also used to be able to make a law here and there himself without the whole parliament – but the lord high chancellor from the upper house would have to agree with it since he was the keeper of the great seal that made something a proper official law.

  3. @kevin1

    Mungana was before he was Premier, going into business with Frank Packer was after.

    You can read about his government’s achievements in any good history book.

  4. @Ikonoclast

    I take it you don’t like Martin Ferguson’s opinions on things. But his opinions have nothing to do with his princeling status. Neither do Annastacia Palaszczuk’s opinions have anything to do with hers. And her status has nothing to do with whether she be a good Premier, though the fact that she has never worked outside politics is not in her favour. But that is commonplace these days.

    Of course I should have mentioned that both of Campbell Newman’s parents were in politics, so that might make him a princeling squared.

  5. @John Chapman

    LOL, I doubt I could write a fullsize, integrated book yet. And I am sure nobody would ever read it. Though I have written several screeds of my own including two polished and finished papers (as polished and finished as I could make them that is) of about 30,000 – 35,000 words each on different topics. These papers went through months of writing and re-writing each.

    These papers were essentially for me to develop my own ideas. They had nothing to with attempts at academic courses or professional writing. One was on what happened to welfare under Howard ( I was in govt. welfare at the time so I saw the staff, policy, organisational and computer system effects first-hand plus some recipient impacts). I needed to research and write that paper (in my own time) for my own sanity.

    When pseudo-corporatism, managerialism and neoliberalism arrived in full force I was like “WTF is this?” I had to understand what was happening or throttle some unfairly selected stand-in target like an Senior Executive Service Manager. Actually all the senior managers in my area were good and decent people so I had no proximal targets for my wrath anyway. I had to sublimate it all into the paper.

    The other paper was on high-level RTS computer design. It was developed at a high level so was not actually about the detail of algorithms (alpha-beta algorithms, flocking algorithms, physics engines etc.) but how to employ them in an integrated fashion for high level conceptual design. It was concerned with finding the Laws and Meta-Laws of RTS design (terms which are defined in the paper.

    The abstract for that paper (in the remote chance than any games systems designer is reading) went;

    “The path to uncovering the General Theory of RTS commences with an appraisal of the time, space and scaling problems presented by RTS systems modelling. The three basic systems of RTS modelling are then considered; namely the environment as “given” system, the economy as primary dependent system and the military as secondary dependent system. In a second paper, reasons for the differences between artificial RTS strategy and classical military strategy are analysed and overcome. A fully integrated understanding of RTS design is developed in terms of combining RTS systems analysis and classical military theory. User control issues are considered, a major advance in AI design is outlined and a two-speed real-time game engine, with strategic time and tactical time auto-switched by the game engine, are all proposed in Paper 2. This entire General Theory of RTS opens the path to creating realistic, large scale and strategic RTS games which will still be playable in the player’s real time.”

    Systems Philosophy?

    All of this interest in political economy, economics, welfare economics and computer game system design (of one specific genre) has led me on to a consideration of what turns out to be Systems Philosophy. I came up with some initial rough ideas and then stopped knowing of course “I can’t possibly be the first to think of this field.” So I googled Systems Philosophy and there it was of course.

    The title of my new paper which is very rough, short and unformed at this stage will give an idea of what I envisage plus of course my naieve grandiosity and overreach.

    Formal Systems and Real Systems –
    How Ideation and Material Reality Interface across Systems Boundaries

    Of course the system boundaries I refer to are far from being just computer system boundaries. They are, or will be if I ever finish it, certain system boundaries I can best manage to survey. However, the way computer systems designers model their boundaries and the way various formal systems (often in existence well before computers) mimic “scripts”, “recipes” and algorithms for administrators and other controllers is a key issue I think. In this sense, forms of social automation and programming in individuals and of society commenced way before the invention of computers. Indeed they probably commenced with language.

    I am interested in how ideational and formal systems as models (and this point is trivial and obvious in a sense) map by analogy through the interface and this mechanism controls or influences (both ways) the interactions between formal systems and real systems. What is carried is information of course (it could be nothing else). But I argue that the information is only effectively, influentially AND accurately carried if the “analogy-mapping” is accurate and thus truly in some sense analogous. This is just saying that models must possess some degree of accuracy and most model some (but not all) aspects of real systems accurately. Trivial on the surface but with important implications.

    I also argue that conscious modelling is abstraction and simplification (nothing new here either) but that conscious attention has to be paid to which aspects of reality are abstracted, simplified and distorted. There is a further argument about distortion being inherent to modelling and thus one must consciously advance good supportable reasons for accepting or even designing some distortions to exclude others and so on.

    I also delineate between “rules” and “laws”. Laws are things like the Laws of Thermodynamics in real systems. Legislatated laws or the so-called “laws of chess” or “laws of rugby” are really rules. However, there is an interesting arena where workable formal systems (even language and mathematics) must also obey internal axioms which must be close analogs of real system laws otherwise the formal system cannot share (give and receive) operable information with real systems.

    Of course, I start with basic definitions and basic ideas.

    Definition 1 – A Formal System is any well-defined system of abstract thought based on the model of mathematics or language.

    Definition 2 – A Real System is any system governed by the Laws discoverable by the hard sciences particularly physics, chemistry, biology and ecology.

    Then I look at the major system interfaces as follows where the symbol | represents an interface;

    Primary Ideation System | Formal System | Real System | System behind Nature

    Primary Ideation System approximately equals Mind (human and far from fully accessible yet).
    System Behind Nature is conjectural and physical.
    I conclude the middle interface is the one we can study most closely because theoretically we know what is going on on BOTH sides of the interface or can find out a lot about it.

    And so it goes… but nobody will likely read this far. Maybe I should darn-well go back somewhere and start on Systems Philosphy from Undergrad Level or maybe Hons. if they accept my almost 40 year old B.A.

    Bet you never thought a throwaway line would elicit all this. Heavens, I must be intellectually bored. It’s also very wet outdoors.

  6. BTW, I claim the (booby) prize for the most OT and longest rant about nothing anybody wants to know. Sigh, it’s still gloomy outside.

  7. @ikon thing: Still n all, I want to encourage you.

    So I think your ready for that next big step – going out with your work, in public. I suggest Nudgee Beach at mid tide.

    Watch out for the nags tho.

  8. LOL. Nags at Nudgee beach? Do they still swim racehorses there?

    As a young person if I ever got too happy, I knew a trip to Nudgee Beach would suitably depress me and convince me of the existential meaninglessness of all human existence.

  9. The choice facing Queenslanders on 31 January is grim. The least worst of the likely outcomes would be for the removal of the Newman government, and the election to government of the same Labor Party which, without any electoral mandate, flogged off a massive amount of Queensland’s publicly owned assets after winning office in 2009.

    It seems likely that a sizable number of small party and independent candidates will also be voted into Parliament. We can hope that a sizable portion of this group are not in the pockets of the corporations.

    The choice on offer to Greek voters, when they vote 6 days earlier on Sunday 25 January is much clearer. On the one hand they have a government which is resolved to continue to inflict the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) dictates of savage austerity on them. On the other, there is the opposition SYRIZA Party led by the 40 year old Alexis Tsipras. Tsipras is resolved to tell the IMF and German Chancellor Angela Merkel to butt out of Greek affairs. Below is a link to a 2:46 length video of a rally of the Greek SYRIZA Party and part of a speech by Alexis Tsipras:

    Hope is on the way

    The most recent opinion polls indicate that not only is SYRIZA may win an outright majority.

  10. @James Sinnamon

    I cannot agree with this proposition:

    The least worst of the likely outcomes would be for the removal of the Newman government, and the election to government of the same Labor Party which, without any electoral mandate, flogged off a massive amount of Queensland’s publicly owned assets after winning office in 2009.

    How on earth could that be “least worst”?

    I would argue that, since it is entirely due to the internal fascist neo-con determined failings of the ALP that we are in this situation, it would be better to get the fascist neo-con LNP re-elected if only to make the point that the fascist neo-con ALP cannot get back into government simply by default.

    Even in a hung parliament history shows that the neo-con ALP/LNP vote together to get their worst legislation through.

    A hung parliament is our best hope in the short term.

  11. @Megan

    At least, can we agree that a first preference vote for a Green, other small party candidates or an independent is nearly always preferable to a vote for either Labor or the LNP?

    Megan wrote:

    … it is entirely due to the internal fascist neo-con determined failings of the ALP that we are in this situation …

    I was as angry as anyone about what the Bligh Labor government did to Queensland from 2009 and was happy to see them trounced in the 2012 elections, even by Newman.

    Quite possibly, as you say, a hung Parliament after 31 January may be our best (or least worst) hope.

    The Victorian Parliament is another good illustration of how Labor and the Liberals and Nationals are a combined coalition against the Victorian public. In a sitting of Parliament just before the Christmas break both sides rammed through legislation to flog of much of the Mornington peninsula to foreign land developers. Both sides of Parliament are committed to privatising the Port of Melbourne and the building of more private toll roads.

    Have you seen the video of the SYRIZA election rally, Megan?

    The developments in Greece, and the opinion polls which indicate that SYRIZA is likely to form the Greek government after 25 January, show me that there is still much hope in the world.

    Apologies: The last sentence in my previous post should have read:

    The most recent opinion polls indicate that SYRIZA may win an outright majority.

  12. @James Sinnamon

    The current situation around the globe seems to be this. Even when people elect governments that are supposedly a little left wing like the Qld ALP or ostensibly quite left wing like the French Socialists what happens next? What happens next is they not only squib on genuine left of centre policies, they turn right fully comply with the standard neo-con capitalist agenda.

    I hope I am proved wrong but even if SYRIZA are elected I have little hope they will do anything significant in the way of genuine left wing policies. They will either roll over and comply with the neo-con agenda or they will attempt left-wing things in right-wing system (the EU) which is like playing the neocons at their favourite game when they hold all the cards as well.

    I have had a quick glance at SYRIZA’s political program and it does not look radical enough. The chief economist of SYRIZA claims to be a “Marxist” but these are empty words. He says;

    “Everything we will do is in the context of staying in the eurozone … nobody believes all this talk about Grexit any more. [Angela] Merkel herself has said it is impossible for any country to leave.”

    As Bill Mitchell says on his blog;

    “How are we to interpret that statement?

    Does Greece have the political clout in Brussels to change the overall Eurozone Groupthink from a harsh neo-liberalism to something different, more in keeping with the motherhood ambitions articulated above?

    Answer: definitely not! The cornerstones of the monetary union, which makes it unworkable include the lack of currency sovereignty, the fiscal rules embodied in the Stability and Growth Pact and the related Fiscal Compact and other protocols (six and two packs), and the straitjacket imposed on the European Central Bank.

    Will Greece be able to budge any of them? Highly unlikely, read – no way.”

    Basically, if Greece remains in the monetary union of the EU, they have zero chance of escaping their economic dilemma. The EU will impose “Austerity Until Collapse”.

    Greece’s only chance, as a first step, would be to exit the EU, re-adopt their own currency and float it. Only with currency sovereignty does a nation gain full control of its own government budget: genuine monetary and fiscal sovereignty can only operate in the context of currency sovereignty. A democratic people’s government can only do what the people require when it has full sovereignty. Without full sovereignty, they are still doing what Brussels and Germany want; still dancing to their tune. It is river-dancing in a straight jacket to someone else’s tune.

    In addition to leaving the Euro, reclaiming currency sovereignty and floating that currency, Greece must repudiate all debt. Greece would need to default on all national debt. The path from there would not be easy (but then the path of following IMF austerity dictates is not easy either). While the new path might initially be difficult, but no more difficult than austerity, it would promise real economic reform and relief in the long run. Greece could then run budget deficits of an order to restimulate aggregate demand albeit with the reservations that accelerating inflation must not be unleashed and the real resources Greece can bring to bear on its problems have limits as do the real resources of any nation.

    The way Iceland charted its way out of the economic crash shows the benefits of full currency sovereignity for a nation. As Bill Mitchell says over on his blog;

    “In this blog – Iceland … another neo-liberal casualty – I detailed the decision of the President of Iceland to veto an act of parliament which would have seen the nation “repay” £3.4bn to Britain and the Netherlands. This repayment was in relation to the amount that the British and Dutch governments paid out in 2008 to their citizens who had deposits in a private Icelandic bank which collapsed during the height of the global financial crisis.

    The fact that Iceland has its own currency has given it tremendous leverage over the international financial markets. Greece has no such leverage. Iceland could default on foreign currency-denominated debts and let its currency depreciate.

    As I will argue, the real costs of that action were substantial but finite. A more rapid return to growth, however, was guaranteed. Greece is now in its fifth year of recession (Depression) with no end in sight.

    On February 17, 2012 the rating agency Fitch upgraded Iceland’s rating and said:

    ‘The restoration of Iceland’s Long-term foreign currency rating to investment grade reflects the progress that has been made in restoring macroeconomic stability, pushing ahead with structural reform and rebuilding sovereign creditworthiness since the 2008 banking and currency crisis … Iceland has successfully exited its IMF programme and gained renewed access to international capital markets. A promising economic recovery is underway … ‘

    Please don’t think that I consider the assessments of the ratings agencies to matter much. But they reflect the way the orthodoxy thinks. The point is that Iceland has a place in the world that the EMU nations would envy right now.

    While the Icelandic government certainly didn’t go on a fiscal spree and allowed net exports to reap the advantages of the massive depreciation, the government also didn’t scorch the economy with austerity. They have allowed growth to build its tax revenue rather than exacting harsh tolls on its citizens.” – Bill Mitchell.

    If you go to Bill Mitchell’s blog, you can search “Greece” and “Iceland” (separately) to get his views on the diverging fates of those two nations.

    Footnote: Whatever one might think of certain formal system rhetorical MMT claims, the reality is that Bill Mitchell is the best and most empirically driven (data-wise and history-wise) macroeconomist writing today, IMO.

  13. @Ikonoclast

    “The fact that Iceland has its own currency has given it tremendous leverage over the international financial markets.”

    Back in the day, left wingers used to say that if a country had its own floating currency that would leave it to the mercy of speculators in the international financial markets, so it would be better off in a currency union. Good luck to the Greeks if they leave the Euro and adopt a SYRIZA program. The speculators will eat them alive. The best that can be said for this course of action is that they are already being alive by the EU and ECB, so what have they got to lose?

  14. @Uncle Milton

    What you say is incorrect.

    1. “Back in the day, left wingers used to say that if a country had its own floating currency that would leave it to the mercy of speculators in the international financial markets, so it would be better off in a currency union.”

    Which left wingers said this? Sources please. Even if some did say this it shows they did not properly underatand floating currencies nor the political economy aspects of an OCA (Optimal Currency Area). The OCA essentially aligns with the sovereign nation. This allows full monetary and fiscal sovereignty and, in a proper federalist system, horizontal and vertical fiscal transfers as appropriate.

    2. “The speculators will eat them alive.”

    Have the speculators eaten Iceland alive or has it recovered from the GFC better than Greece? Hint, it has recovered much better than Greece (which has deterioated continuously). Please par attention to empirical outcomes before making hypothetical statements.

    3. “Good luck to the Greeks if they leave the Euro and adopt a SYRIZA program.”

    It seems that step 1 of the SYRIZA plan is to stay in the Euro. This renders the rest of their plan impossible to implement.

  15. I just got a “Reach-Tel” automated poll, obviously commissioned by the ALP.

    My take: They think they can win the election by saying “Barrier Reef”, “Jobs”, “Health”.

    But mostly, “Barrier Reef”.


  16. PS: The health questions weren’t about maintaining and strengthening the PUBLIC health system, just vaguely “Health”. Similarly vague were “Jobs” and “Managing the Economy”.

    One question about the Barrier Reef was along the lines of: “Do you support minimizing dredging around the Great Barrier Reef?”

    This unreformed ALP richly deserve the election defeat I am sure they will receive, and which they appear determined to get.

  17. That is the reactive non-strategic thinking that gave us…….Tony Abbott……, Megan.

    So go vote Newman because of your assumptions (“obviously commissioned by the ALP”) about a phone poll and then live with the consequences of assets paid for by tax payers and consumers handed over to the “Investment Club” to be used to profiteer even further from the public,……and all of the other lies about employment and economic growth.

    One of the key things that worked towards Howard being thrown out was the husband of the LNP local member being caught stuffing letter boxes with falsified political fliers. You.. are… certain that was an ALP automated survey, and not a “This bank needs to check you personal details” type of approach?

  18. @Megan

    The ALP are hopeless. Unreformed and unreformable. They are the Capitalism B team. Don’t waste another thought on them. That’s my advice.

    The Greens have good policies overall. Their view of economics is still unfortunately heavily skewed by neoliberal propaganda. This failing is not quite so important at the state level as state governments don’t manage the economic levers of the national economy. I mean monetary and fiscal policy, national vertical transfers and horizontal transfers and the automatic stabilisers of national social transfers.

    It turns out the options in my seat will be in ballot order;

    The Greens
    Capitalism B Team (Otherwise known as ALP)
    Capitalism A Team (Otherwise known as LNP)

    The question is to how best number my ballot paper? I want to;

    (a) elect a Greens candidate; or
    (b) failing that stop (if possible) the election of the Capitalism A Team candidate.

    I assume this ballot would be best for that purpose.

    1 The Greens
    2 Capitalism B Team (Otherwise known as ALP)
    – Capitalism A Team (Otherwise known as LNP)

    This is where the dash equals a blank preference box. Little good this will do but I guess I must make my tiny, ineffectual protest against the capitalist duopoly parties. It’s a brief moment in time when our society is democratic then it goes back to being an oligarchic capitalist autocracy for the other three years minus 5 seconds for marking a ballot paper.

  19. Your classification algorithm, Ikonoclast, is problematic I feel.

    ALP are definitely “overheads” dominate in their policies, are labour positive and wealth neutral.
    LNP are “traditionally” “turnover” dominate in their policies, are labour negative and wealth positive.
    GREENS are overheads positive, turnover negative , labour neutral, wealth neutral and environment positive.

    The problem with the LNP is that their turnover positive preoccupation is hopelessly compromised by their global free trade disposition this many years after its initial flood of benefits have edded away. LNP like BIG business, but now that big manufacturing is all but gone the big that is left is big media, big mining, decling big farming, and big utilities. Out of those, big media is an overhead, big mining, is a turnover, big farming is intermittent turnover and big utilities is a fixed cost. So in LNP hands the entire economy is hanging off big mining, and the wilting flower of big farming. LNP’s wholesale adoption of free trade has mostly affected the manufacturing sector, and continues to erode its small business remnants, which unfortunately, is where the bulk of empoyment is maintained.

    Taxation revenue comes predominately from income tax and throughput taxation. LNP’s penchent for labour cost suppression (“productivity”) coupled with the failure to maintain manufacturing, directly and negatively impacts on taxation and the govts fiscal flexibility.

    The LNP model is fatally compromised, and I think that your Capitalist A team classification is out of date.

    I have to work now so will expand on Labour and the Greens later.

  20. @BilB

    That is the reactive non-strategic thinking that gave us…….Tony Abbott……,

    I disagree.

    In my opinion a lot of factors made the ALP lose the 2013 election: these include capitulating to a policy of inhumane cruelty toward refugees, “faceless-men” manouverings over the previous 3 years, embrace of neo-liberalism, shafting Wilkie on the pokies promise, backsliding on Tasmanian forests deal, folding to big-mining, backsliding on climate change and slavish adherence to US wars.

    There were others, but they are some of the main ones.

    As the election approached ALP supporters largely boiled their pro-ALP case down to a slogan, repeated loudly and constantly ad nauseam – “Abbott Would Be Worse!”

    As it turns out, that didn’t work.

    In Queensland under the last ALP government they sold assets against the very obvious wishes of the electorate. Now ALP supporters are reverting to type and yelling at everyone “LNP will sell assets, Newman would be worse!”

    I don’t think that will work either. The ALP leader is lamely saying “We won’t sell [any more] assets.” But they haven’t really apologized for doing it last time they were in charge, understandably the electorate doesn’t seem too impressed.

    As I said before, the ALP seems to think they deserve to be elected by default.

  21. The question has to be to your objections,

    refugees, neoliberalism, faceless men, Pokies, Tasmanian forests folding on big mining, backsliding on climate change,

    …has the situation in all of these fields improved under LNP?

    Are refugees being treated more humanely
    Are all of the faceless men now visible
    Has neo-liberalism departed our shores
    Have the LNP abolished pokies
    Are Tasmanian forests now safe
    Has LNP climate action leapt ahead of ALP climate action

    Is Abbott worse for the country than Gillard would have been?

    In Qld I suspect that there are none of the people who sold the power bits there left to make an apology, but I am confused as to why you would keep the other guy who is determined to sell absolutely everything there, including water from what I see of JQ’s list.

  22. Well now I feel nervous and uncomfortable, I’m not used to being “right”.

    Perhaps we should examine this more closely.

    You are right in that the ALP needs to change,…a lot.

    ALP needs to review “free trade” in light of its impacts on our economy. Not form a “is it right or is it not” perspective, but from a which parts are working for us and which parts are working against, to what degree, and what changes can be made to stabilise our employment profile with a view to reducing resources depletion.

    As Labour are hell bent on perpetually talking health and education, can we change to conversation to adapting to the future world rather than reorganising both fields,…yet again.

    The best way to reduce health costs is with technology that enables people to help themselves. We need to rapidly engage in research and product development for self monitoring of health, self diagnosis, and remote diagnosis where possible. This involves software and hardware that enables people to be better informed of their condition whilst collecting information more accurately to assist doctors at the point of consultation whether that be face to face or via technological connection.

    If our economy becomes more resilient through a better connection between govt and industry, the fiscal position will be improved to the extent that the cost of education is not a burden. This should be the aim, not flick reactions to cut costs (LNP), or to rearrange (ALP).

    The best way to reinvigorate the ALP is to get a different mix of candidates. Stop seeking more legal, union, and educational people, start adding science, mathematics, and engineering people. The difference in the outcomes will be the discomfort of change.

  23. @ZM

    So, would you agree that in relation to a legislative proposal introduced by the King, the House of Commons and the House of Lords were (structurally) in the same position? And would you likewise agree that in relation to a legislative proposal introduced to a modern parliament by the executive government, the lower house and the upper house are (structurally) in the same position?

  24. @Ikonoclast

    Purely as a technical comment on how the electoral system works: if your objectives are as stated, then Yes, that is the most effective way of marking your ballot paper to pursue those objectives.

  25. J-D,

    Well, no to tell you the truth.

    The Crown and Parliament had some changes over time. If we forget the roots in Anglo Saxon days for the moment – you see there was an Upper House House of Lords by itself before there was a Liwer House House of Commons. And the head of the Upper House was the Lord High Chancellor who was the highest office except for the King. And as I said the King could devise legislation without seeking the two houses approval but just getting the great seal from the Lord High Chancellor of the Upper House – although then the King had to think the parliamentarians and community wouldn’t rebel against his law.

    And the House of Lords has been the House of Review for ages – except in the UK the House of Commons is even more cunning than ours and says all money bills are not dependent on review by the House of Lords. This is unconstitutional in my view, like Queensland not having its Upper House , but I do not live in Queenskand or the UK.

    And today I think our Commonwealth’s formal process is that the bill originates in the Lower House for debate and if passed goes to the Upper House for review.

    Bills are often thought of by Council – but I don’t think this is the formal process per se is it?
    I think it is more just that the people in the Council have the most power and influence so their bills are the important bills that are likely to get support. But other members can also propose their bills – but they mayn’t have much luck getting them through the Lower House since they gave less power and influence than the Council.

  26. @J-D

    Why the italicised “if”? Given what I write, it is hardly to be doubted that I abhor the LNP, I find the ALP only marginally “better” if at all and even the Greens are not left wing enough for me.

  27. @ZM

    You are mistaken about the formal process. Bills can be originated in either house. The function of originating bills is not restricted to the lower house. It is formally possible for bills to be originated in the upper house and to pass to the lower house only after adoption by the upper house. The formal responsibilities of the houses in this respect are largely symmetrical. What’s more, in practice many bills are originated in the upper house and proceed to the lower house only after the upper house has passed them.

    Did you not know this?

  28. @Ikonoclast

    I italicised the word ‘if’ in an attempt (possibly misconceived — if it was, I regret it) to emphasise that I was expressing no view of my own about objectives.

  29. It seems that the present situation is that the houses are not equal or the same – but that you are correct to the degree that there are some limited types of bills that can originate in the Upper House before proceeding to the Lower House – but not money bills.

    Bills can originate in the executive council, any member, a department, or from the community (I think community bills might be the blues bills I read about another time ).

    Anyway it’s more complicated than either I or you allowed in our starting views but it has encouraged me to read a bit more and contributed to my education about the Criwn and parliamentary history. I still hold that Queensland is entitled to have its Upper House restored though since it is the primary house , and the lower the secondary.

  30. @ZM

    Of course there are more points of detail than I covered in my first comments — or than I have covered in my comments since, for that matter. But that doesn’t prove that my earlier comments were inaccurate, or that I didn’t allow for the complexities: nothing I wrote excluded those complexities.

    You now write that ‘there are some limited types of bills that can originate in the Upper House before proceeding to the Lower House’: but the truth is the reverse of that. There are some limited types of bills that cannot originate in the Upper House; except in relation to those types of bills, the Senate has equal legislative powers with the House of Representatives (see section 53 of the Australian Constitution for details, and note the last sentence).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s