Feedback needed on oral

[pi]

speech on current issue in the media. i was given the topic 'role of the independents in the current House of Reps' (how exciting...). The end is a bit corny but i debate and can present it really well (must be 5-6 mins). Just some feedback please.

Poet and actor, Stan Lee once said: ‘with great powers comes great responsibilities’.

On the night of 21st of August, this power and its associated responsibilities, were put in the hands of five men - 4 independents and 1 Green, as we stared down the barrel of the first hung federal parliament since the early 1940s. A hung parliament results when no party is able to secure more than half the 150 MPs in the House of Representatives. This means that no party can pass laws without gaining support from other minor parties or independent members of the House. The disgruntled, ex-National MPs: Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor, and two left-leaning MPs - one a Greeen, and the other one an ex-Green - Adam Bandt and Andrew Wilkie, were left to decide Australia’s future after an election which many could compare to the first drawn Grand Final: a non-result.

The horse-trading began on the night of the election, with Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott wooing the independents with promises of the betterment of rural and regional society and infrastructure, introduction of parliamentary reform, issues of broadband delivery, and the option of purportedly stable government and reliability. These negotiations continued for another three weeks, with policies spruiked, promises made and agreements reached for a “kinder, gentler parliament”. In the end, the independents were split, Katter siding with the Liberals and Oakeshott and Windsor choosing to support Labor, with Bandt and Wilkie having already indicated their support for Gillard government. Labor was able to form a minority government, the independents promised stability and the Governor-General sealed the deal.

This new political paradigm has placed the independents in a major position of power. Because of the hung parliament, the government, unlike previously, cannot simply rely just on their numbers to pass legislation through the lower house. Now the government also needs the support of the independents to pass any laws at all. This allows the independents to wield huge power.

Now, these independents, we all know who they are and who they sided with, but I doubt any of you know what each of them really stands for or believes in. In actual fact, only senior Coalition and Labor MPs themselves can actually answer this question as all the deliberations were held behind large, closed parliament doors, leaving us, the people of Australia, in the dark. Essentially, we have, willingly or not, given the power to make decisions on health, transport, education, disabilities and the economy to five people who we know relatively nothing about. This in itself poses big issues on the trust that we can put onto these people.

Furthermore, the independents can also exercise undue power over the parliament and over the Australian people. Since both the major parties want to have the independents on their side, the independents’ demands and wants are most likely to be met, even though they may be skewed towards the benefits of their constituents, regional-dwelling Australians, rather than for the improvement to all Australians. The independents should be expected to keep both the government and the opposition accountable, but will be unable to due to their desire to put their own electorates ahead of us, the Australian people. Not only does this satisfy the people they represent, but it also increases their chances of re-election, prolonging the longevity of their six-figure salary.

This has already been shown in that significant additional funding has been provided to regional hospitals in the electorates of these independents, directly resulting from the influence of the independents. Is it fair that the decisions determining Australia’s future should be decided in favour of a few selected rural communities? These independents, who seek to use their newfound power to push for what they believe are key issues facing a post-GFC economy, such as banning imports of certain bananas, are set to dominate the political scene for at least the next three years.

So far, only a few pieces of legislation have made their way through the scrutiny of the lower house. One, an agreement facilitated by the independents regarding parliamentary reform, has already been dishonoured by an agreeing Coalition. In addition, the independents have already helped to pass legislation, in the space of a week, from both the government and the opposition, the first time in over fifty years. These examples raise doubts to whether or not the independents can actually guarantee the stability in the lower house for which they had promised.

Katter, Oakeshott, Windsor, Bandt and Wilkie: the independents of today’s parliament. We don’t really know what they stand for, but nevertheless, they have been given unprecedented power over Australia’s future. They will be expected to keep the government and opposition accountable and guarantee stability in the lower house. However, in the space of a mere few weeks, these independents have already secured additional funding for their electorates, funding that could have been better spent on Aboriginal health or people with disabilities. They have already shown that they are incapable of providing stability in the lower house, having already drifted to the Coalition in certain issues. And finally, they have already caused doubts in the minds of us, the Australian people, as the whether or not it is fair for a few rural constituencies to decide our future. The independents have been given power, but as Yoda would say: ‘acting responsible, they are not’.

[werdna]

I only glanced over it... but first things first, who are you speaking as?

For instance, I took a different kind of stance when I did mine. I spoke as an expert, a professional; which allowed me to really instil authority and persuasion.

Think about your own position and your intended audience.

[pi]

Thanks for the advice.

I'm supposed to be speaking as a student that aims to persuade a relatively uniformed student audience. we get marked on content, ability to captivate and inform the audience and how our speech is structures (ie. general flow). There is also a question time at the end, where the teacher and/or the student audience asks questions.