Queenslander!
I have to disagree with Andrew Bartlett's notion that fixed four year terms is not very Queenslanderish. A fair go Andrew? It seems to be more about the benefits of incumbency to me. With the year leading up to an election essentially lost, we basically are now seeing a two year term. The ability to call it when the incumbent wants is not exactly displaying the virtue of a fair go. The idea of an upper house is vital, as we currently have a situation in QLD where the Criminal Code has been amended to allow ministers to lie with absolute impunity to parliamentary committees. A Californian style recall system may also have merit and I personally know of a couple of top notch Queenslanders who have come from there.
I've noted before with my argument for four year fixed terms comes the need for an upper house. These two ideas must be considered together.
4 comments:
I'm all for fixed terms - just not four years long ones.
It would be good to use this debate for longer terms to renew the calls for reintroducting an Upper House.
I can't imagine a recall mechanism being agreed to by the major parties, but I think it would be a good initiative to consider - perhaps we could give them a run at local government level, given that the mergers into mega-councils have taken many of those bodies even further away from the community.
Fixed terms are a good idea and a review of the upper house being introduced is vital. Lying is written into the legislation in QLD at the moment.
Andrew Bartlett for Premier!
I'd suggest 4 rather than 3 years would be better. The last thing people want to be doing if a term is fixed, is going back to the polls sooner rather than later if they need not have to. However there should be a mechanism that allows them to do do if the govt of the day is atrocious (re- NSW and QLD).
Post a Comment