Upper House Case Study

Decent Essays

It is very evident that Queensland does not have to reinstate an upper house to be an effect government. This is due to that the original upper house was unable to do its job effectively of reviewing and negotiating laws and bills. Especially amending money bills that the lower house passed, due to that its members came from elitist group of wealth and education (Queensland Parliament, 2010). This elitist upper house resulted in a lacked of diversity, therefore laws that where made for working class Queenslanders, were rarely passed. Another large benefit of not having an upper house is that the lower house can debate and process new bills effectively, due to not having an upper house which can delay bills by up to 6 months. This cuts out the process of being of going through another house, therefore responding to society as quickly as it changes (Inside Story, 205). Also the reintroduction of the upper house would also be a costly burden on society, with the government having to potentially cut representatives in the lower house to compensate for the new senators (Inside Story, 2015). This cut to the lower house means that there would be less representatives and more people they are having to represent, therefore missing out on key minority groups opinions and beliefs in society. Therefore it is very clear that Queensland has no need for an upper house, and that the state functions adequately without the overruling power. References Inside Story. 2015. "Should Queensland go back to the future?” 2014." Accessed August 17, 2015. …show more content…

One of the housemates moves interstate. You are looking to replace the housemate but want to make sure that the house continues to be peaceful and cooperative. Consequently, you have decided to come up with a policy to assess any potential housemates and to operate the household

Get Access