The Queensland Electoral and Administrative Review Commission has alleged that the absence of an Upper House 'has had a profound effect on the ability of the Queensland Parliament to carry out its functions under the Constitution and conventions which require it to act responsibly and review the activities of the executive arm of government". The Upper House requires six individuals from each state to partake in debates surrounding the technicalities, scope and consequences of proposed policies, laws and general government objectives. Despite critics suggesting that restoring the Senate would be superfluous, one could suggest that introducing a bicameral Parliament would facilitate additional avenues for legislative scrutiny and debate which is imperative to strengthen government accountability. Moreover, a second chamber would necessarily provide a forum that encompasses more diverse and representative interests which is paramount to democratic governance. In contrast to the Lower House -that is dominated by persons with specific political orientation- the Upper House politicians are elected independently of their political preference, thus one could naively suggest that the Upper House is less biased and more representative of diversity. Social issues stem from narrow mindedness and a lack of knowledge which is symptomatic of a lack of debate and minority representation. Without a diverse and independent second chamber, debate is compromised and social issues may be circumvented in favour of more 'demanding' issues such as tax, state budget, infrastructure etc. Therefore, having an Upper House which facilitates diversity and gives minority and social interests a "voice" is paramount to the social work arena.
Quote from: CB on May 17, 2011, 11:06:06 AM
The Queensland Electoral and Administrative Review Commission has alleged that the absence of an Upper House 'has had a profound effect on the ability of the Queensland Parliament to carry out its functions under the Constitution and conventions which require it to act responsibly and review the activities of the executive arm of government".
The Upper House requires six individuals from each state to partake in debates surrounding the technicalities, scope and consequences of proposed policies, laws and general government objectives. Despite critics suggesting that restoring the Senate would be superfluous, one could suggest that introducing a bicameral Parliament would facilitate additional avenues for legislative scrutiny and debate which is imperative to strengthen government accountability.
Moreover, a second chamber would necessarily provide a forum that encompasses more diverse and representative interests which is paramount to democratic governance. In contrast to the Lower House -that is dominated by persons with specific political orientation- the Upper House politicians are elected independently of their political preference, thus one could naively suggest that the Upper House is less biased and more representative of diversity.
Social issues stem from narrow mindedness and a lack of knowledge which is symptomatic of a lack of debate and minority representation. Without a diverse and independent second chamber, debate is compromised and social issues may be circumvented in favour of more 'demanding' issues such as tax, state budget, infrastructure etc. Therefore, having an Upper House which facilitates diversity and gives minority and social interests a "voice" is paramount to the social work arena.
Tried to fix that for you, but... Yeah. Is your point that more politicians would be a good thing?