Why NSW needs a stronger crossbench in its upper house
The Legislative Council exists to check whoever governs. That only works when the balance of power sits with people who read the bills — the job the Democrats were built for.
The NSW Legislative Council exists for one reason: so that whoever wins government doesn’t get to mark their own homework. Forty-two members, elected by the whole state, with the numbers almost never controlled by the government of the day — it is, by design, a house of review.
Whether it actually reviews anything depends entirely on who holds the crossbench.
A strong crossbench reads every bill, moves amendments, drags reluctant ministers into committee hearings and forces documents into the light. A weak one waves things through in exchange for whatever narrow concession is on offer that week. New South Wales has seen both, and the difference shows up everywhere — in how planning decisions are scrutinised, how privatisations are examined, and how quickly a minister’s “commercial in confidence” excuse gets tested.
This is precisely the job the Australian Democrats were built for. For decades our senators held the balance of power in Canberra and used it the same way every time: not to blackmail governments, not to grandstand, but to read the legislation, take the evidence, improve what could be improved and block what deserved blocking. Keeping the bastards honest was never a slogan about hating politicians — it was a method.
The mechanics are on our side. At each state election, half the Council’s seats — twenty-one of them — are elected with the whole of NSW voting as one electorate. The quota is around four and a half per cent: demanding, but genuinely within reach of a well-organised party with a clear offer. No gerrymander to overcome, no safe seats to crack. Every vote in the state counts the same.
At the election on 13 March 2027, the question for the upper house won’t be who governs — it will be who checks the government. We think the honest answer should include the Democrats. If you agree, join us and help put a reviewer back in the house of review.