Comments on: Rann attacks Legislative Council

By: Brenton

Brenton — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 02:40:31 +0000

The proposed referendum never took place. Would have been hugely defeated. Rann and conservative Labor got the message- keep your hands off our blessed Legislative Council. Now with 2 wonderful Green MLC’s!

By: Ken Westmoreland

Ken Westmoreland — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:15:32 +0000

New Zealand’s situation is different because it’s an independent country, whereas South Australia is a state in a federal system, meaning that even if the Legislative Council were abolished, as in Queensland, South Australia would still benefit from a bicameral system.

National did propose that New Zealand have a Senate elected by STV (Hare-Clark) with equal representation for the North and South Island – as was proposed in the 1914 bill for the Legislative Council. However, it was only as a reaction to the decision to adopt PR in the 1990s – and it was National that got rid of the Legislative Council in the first place!

First Joh-Bjelke-Petersen, then Mike Rann – who’ll be next Kiwi export in Australian state politics?

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:02:25 +0000

If the New Zealand Legislative Council had been proportionalised then or in the 30 years after that then their politics would be a bit different because the Legislative Council would have been much less likely to be abolished and Social Credit would probably have been elected at the 1954 election and performed a Democrat style function for decades.

The Barton governments election bill in 1902 included PR for the Senate but the Senate amended it out of the final Electoral Act 1902. This would have prevented the ludicrously lopsided results in the Senate before 1949. At the 1919 election no ALP Senators were elected and the was only one elected at the previous election so there was 1 ALP Senator for three years. A PR Senate would have meant a minimum of 12 Senators for each side (after two half-Senate elections) until the Senate was expanded.

http://www.prsa.org.au/history.htm#Commonwealth

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:48:08 +0000

I believe that there is support in the ACT ALP for 3×7 and I think that they may have tried to change before but fallen at the hurdle of the Territories Minister. The ACT was divided into three Commonwealth electorates from 1996-1998 (although that included Jervis Bay Territory). There boundaries are always going to be rather arbitrary in the ACT.

By: kme

kme — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:00:50 +0000

@Tom

The problem with 3 electorates in the ACT is that they don’t align very well to communities of interest. The problem would be particularly acute with three equal-sized electorates – you really need 5, so either 5×5 or 5×7, but 5×7 would be more than a doubling in size of the current LA so is pretty unlikely.

By: Nick C

Nick C — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:10:54 +0000

It may be clear Greens policy now, but weren’t the Greens WA always opposed to 1 vote 1 value before they affiliated with the Australian Greens? At least, when I was a Democrat, that’s something we used to criticise the Greens over.

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:26:16 +0000

The reform of the LCWA was badly done. What should have happened is that the other Greens, the ALP and the breakaway Liberal should have voted to give the President (of the LCWA) a vote on all bills that require an absolute majority (the President was ALP) so that they had a majority and then passed a 5 7-member electorate upper house with 1 vote, 1 value with each LCWA electorate corresponding to 13 LAWA electorates (for 65 MLAs).

By: Ben Raue

Ben Raue — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:54:12 +0000

Yes, the WA Legislative Council definitely needs reform. When the Legislative Assembly was reformed in the last term, introducing one vote one value in the Legislative Council was blocked by a single country Greens MLC opposing what is clear Greens policy and forcing the government to compromise.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:03:15 +0000

Of all Australian Legislative Councils, the one that needs upgrading is Western Australia’s considering that one country vote is worth more than three city votes.
This inevitably grants the state a lasting conservative upper house. No conservative government in their right mind would want to overhaul this system and Labor would have to secure a very high vote with the Greens in order to have an attempt at this.

By: Nick C

Nick C — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:09:19 +0000

Found a couple of mentions of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Legislative_Council
Referenced to
The New Zealand Legislative Council: A Study of the Establishment, Failure and Abolition of an Upper House by W. K. Jackson (1972, University of Otago Press, Dunedin)

And here
http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/G/GovernmentParliament/TheLegislativeCouncil/en