Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Cross benches key to real change in NSW

By Richard Stanton - posted Wednesday, 23 March 2011


What type of person decides to stand for a seat in the state parliament of NSW, what qualifies them to represent their chosen constituents, and what motivates them to run either as party candidates or as independents?

Are there, or should there be, factors that qualify or disqualify the 498 candidates for the Legislative Assembly and the 311 candidates for the Legislative Council beyond being on the electoral role?

The direct democracy advocates would say there is nothing to preclude all citizens of the state from taking turns at sitting in the red and green leather benches in Macquarie Street.

Advertisement

Indeed, I spent the day there as part of the so-called People's Parliament in early March and being in the House creates a sense of power and occassion that is unmatched in other places.

The question though is not about power because a fixed number of candidates will take up the seats – in the Upper House there are 311 candidates competing for 21 spots.

If you subtract the 'dummy runners' – the candidates who are there to split the vote; the disaffected former party candidates who want to get back at their former 'team mates'; and the party candidates who are invested with the idea of accumulating power for power's sake, what's left over?

Probably a handful of individuals across a range of ages and capabilities who would bring to the parliament a different perspective.

It's unlikely to happen though given that those individuals are not well-funded nor do they have time to think up and fabricate campaign events and stunts.

Fabricate events and stunts are part of the game.

Advertisement

The parties spend millions of dollars devising stunts because they know at the end of the campaign, when they get their candidate elected, they will recoup every dollar of their large investment through public campaign funding.

This savage division between the parties and the rest of the candidates – the naïve independents, the groups forming as parties to remove parking meters and to get voting squares above the line – preserves the parliamentary status quo because the parties know their advertising investment will be refunded.

Not so the hapless losers – and there will be many given that in the upper house alone there are 311 competitors for 21 prizes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Richard Stanton is a political communication writer and media critic. His most recent book is Do What They Like: The Media In The Australian Election Campaign 2010.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Richard Stanton

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy