federal politics
22 Jun 2009
Who's Afraid Of A Double Dissolution?
When the CPRS fails in the Senate this week, will the Government set a course for a double dissolution? Andrew Bartlett looks at the DD issue from Rudd's point of view
This week will be the final sitting week for the Senate until mid-August and, as is usually the case at this time of year, the Government has a large pile of legislation that it is insisting absolutely must be dealt with by the end of the week.But while "utegate" and "babygate" (in the Senate at least) will soak up some media attention, most of the legislative focus will be on the Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction (or emissions trading) Scheme (CPRS).
There are the usual threats of sitting into the weekend and beyond, or of bringing the Senate back for an extra week's sitting sometime in July. However there is absolutely zero chance that the Senate will be called back in mid-July, and it's fairly unlikely proceedings will go past Friday this week.
The bigger question is whether the CPRS Bill, which will almost certainly fail to gain the necessary votes to pass in the Senate, will be used by the Government as a trigger to call an early double dissolution election before the end of this year.
Various advices, some formal and some not so formal, will be thrown around over whether adjourning debate — and a final Senate vote — on the legislation until August would meet the definition of "failure to pass" under Section 57 of the Constitution. If such an event does qualify as a "failure to pass", it starts the clock ticking on the three-month period set in the Constitution that the Government must wait before it can reintroduce the Bill if it wants to use the Bill's second failure in the Senate as a trigger for a double dissolution election.
These varying opinions are of some academic interest but frankly don't matter much. If the Government can provide a credible legal opinion to the Governor-General that the conditions of Section 57 have been met, then an election will be called if they want it. The High Court might void any legislation passed via a joint sitting of Parliament after the election if they disagreed that the conditions of Section 57 had been met, but I can't imagine a circumstance where the High Court would void an election on this basis after the fact.
So, given that the CPRS is almost certain to be defeated or delayed by the Senate at some stage during this week, are we headed for an early double dissolution election? While election speculation is a favourite topic for political observers, the obsessive focus on possible dates has often annoyed me as it takes attention away from the real decisions and issues that directly affect people here and now.
However, it is a question that is being repeatedly floated, so we might as well have a proper look at it.
I think the chance of an election being called before the end of the year is minimal. Having an election this year would be seen as just too soon by many people, unless there was an overwhelming reason. In addition, an election called before the redistributions in Queensland and New South Wales can be finished would create a very messy situation. Two Queensland electorates would be split into three and two New South Wales electorate would be merged into one as soon as the election was announced. With less than five weeks until election day, parties, candidates and voters would all have to figure out which electorate they were in and who the contestants were. I can't see this scenario helping the Government much.
But I do think there is a reasonable chance — maybe 25 per cent — that the Government could use a double dissolution trigger for an election sometime early next year, if they felt the circumstances were right.
Regardless of whether the next election is a double-dissolution which elects the full Senate, or a standard election electing only half the Senate, it is a virtually certainty that the Greens will have the balance of power afterwards. The key factor is not how many seats the Greens might win, but the fact that the Coalition will lose at least one in Queensland, where their fortuitous four-seats-out-of-six haul from the 2004 election cannot be repeated now that the Liberals and Nationals are running on a joint ticket. They may well lose one or two more, but one is enough to give the Greens the sole balance of power, regardless of whether they increase their own tally or not.
The most significant difference between a half-Senate and full-Senate (double dissolution) election as far as the Parliament is concerned right now is that the change to a Greens balance of power would happen straight away (rather than be delayed until July 2011) under a half-Senate election. Although Steve Fielding's minimal chances of getting re-elected would clearly be better (although still not very high) in a double dissolution, in either of the two election scenarios it is hard to see the Greens not finishing up as the sole holders of the balance of power.
Governments always call an election at a time they believe best suits them, and they continually monitor all the factors in assessing and reassessing when that might be. There may be a Plan A, B, C and D, but there is no sealed envelope in the Prime Minister's bottom drawer with an election date written on it.
While an early 2010 double dissolution election may have some attraction for the Government — not least in simplifying their task in getting things agreed to by the Senate — the downside for them is that it will constrict their options for running a full term next time. In a double dissolution election, those Senators who are only elected for a half-term (three years) are deemed to have started their term from the preceding 1 July, which would be likely to cut at least seven months off the term of the whole Government — unless it was prepared to call a Senate-only election sometime before 1 July 2012.
It is widely assumed these days that no government will call a Senate-only election — the last was in the late 1960s — so a double dissolution in the first part of next year makes it hard for the Government to avoid an early election in their second term.
So there may be an early election next year, although it's more likely there won't be. Probably the best option for the Government — all other things being equal regarding political events — would be to call a double dissolution in early July 2010, assuming they had a trigger by then. This would mean they could get their double dissolution in just before the onset of the Constitutional prohibition that prevents a double dissolution happening less than six months before the end of the Parliament's three year term. And it would also make it possible for the Government to run a full three years in their subsequent term.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Andrew, I think that we had better wait until we see what the next week or two of Utegate brings before making prognostications on DD Elections. At least one, maybe two of the major parties are going to come out of this smelling like a sewer.
But of course, if Turnbull were forced to resign because of shennanigans with emails, Rudd would possibly want to take advantage of the resultant Co-alition disarray.
If Rudd or Swan were forced to resign, seemingly unlikely at the moment, with the Feds saying that the email was indeed a fake, then you can say that the chances of quick elections are definitely ZERO! Dazza.
I cannot see Kevin Rudd handing over any more Senate power to the Greens in the immediate term. He would be better off trying to split the Coalition on his carbon trading scheme and get it through the Senate with the Liberals help.
Somewhat strange, is it not that Rudd and Co see the Greens as the greater enemy, and would rather lie in bed with the LibNats than a progressive Party.
This has always been so, Fielding got into the Senate because the Victorian Right Wing Labour Party played silly-buggers with preferences, JUST TO KEEP THE GREENS FROM WINNING! So if they are having lots of troubles with him, ( and we all are!) they have no one else to blame.
But I can and do blame the Labour Party for it’s Far Right allegiances, which allow so many wierdos and troglodytes to get into Parliament.
As for the Treasury email, some rumours that Mr. Godwin Grech has long term contacts with the Libs, and in particular within Turnbull’s office more recently. I have a terrible feeling that Mr. Grech has been ‘badly used’ by people associated with Turnbull and perhaps other Libs., and will pay the price with his job and possibly his Super.
I doubt that the Feds will find the ‘users’. And seemingly all for naught!
That must gall the plotters.
However, now, maybe Rudd will do something about cleaning the Howard positioned people out of the Public Service. That woman so involved with "Children overboard" is still Secretary of the Health Department, were Howard placed her as a reward for services rendered to him, just for starters.
How many of the people in Treasury are also long term Howard/Liberal supporters? Probably most, after 12 years!
Does Rudd really think that just because he is a Far Right Wing Religious Nutter, and loves all Liberals and Nats and wants to give them nice Government paid jobs when they leave Parliament (with the possible exception of Malcolm Turnbull), that these people will will not white-ant him if given half the chance? Dazza.
And as for the CPRS, I think that the worst thing possible for Australia at the moment is for this "Dog’s Breakfast" to be passed in the Senate, if not amended massively, at Greens approval. So I hope very strongly that the Libs are not split on this, and do their Barnaby Joyce Filibuster.
Hopefully better scheme next time, one that actually does something for the poor devastated Planet Earth and it’s rapidly disappearing species.
At the moment it is simply a transfer of incredible amounts of Public Funds to polluting Big Business, and does NOTHING for Global Warming in the slightest.
But Wrong Wong has hung her job on this, and if it does not get through, she may be for the big jump. She could then retire from politics and get a well paid job with the Big Polluters, for trying so hard to give them billions, for nothing. Sensing a loss, she has been losing her ‘cool’ in Senate, although it really would be something to see that alabaster mask cracked a little.
However, Rudd would never give Garrett her job, so I do not know who would take over and do Rudd’s and Big Business bidding so strongly, so maybe she is safe for the time being.
Well,….. maybe Martin Ferguson, now that is a terrible thought. Dazza.
I realise this is a left wing e-journal catering to a left wing audience but when blatantly obvious stuff pops only the nut jobs deny it’s relevant. One aspect of ETS seems to have slipped under the radar in all the nonsense about "ute-gate".
On June 15th and in an attempt to get his support Fielding and his advisors met with Climate Minister Wong, her Chief scientist (Penny Sackett), head of the ANU Climate Research Centre (Will Steffen) and other staffers to ask some simple questions about global warming.
Finally someone gets a chance to question the secret cabal of government funded AGW proponents. In the interest of science and public good one would have expected a furious and wide ranging debate covering the the broad range of science involved and minutely recorded minutes.
But what really happened? Senator Fielding was restricted to three simple question, all discussions are "privileged" and confidential! Ironically not one of the "simple" questions was able to be answered directly by this panel of experts; "we’ll get back to you" was the response but nearly 10 days later nothing!
I suspect the answers, if they are ever forthcoming (and if Wong has given up on ETS they won’t bother!), will be little better than those given in "question time" in Parliament; obstructive and devoid of substantive content.
I realise that AGW gives the best chance to achieve world government by unelected dictatorship but does it ever occur to you bunch of Trots/Marxists/ to ask why there is no real transparency in the debate of climate science?
Oh Dazza, you do exaggerate so!!!!
Icedvolvo asks a very good question: Why is there no real transparency in the debate about climate science?
You may as well ask for a rational debate on Christian science or Scientology.
Because, the proponents mouth the words climate change like the bumper sticker reads: I’m a christian, not perfect just saved.
Well kiddos, just because the green house gases are rising and the polar ice is melting, does’nt prove causality!
Well maybe the air would be cleaner without coal, and we could find better ways to generate domestic electricity.
But would global warming be attenuated?
We can only try. But if it does’nt work won’t we look like a bunch of charlies?
Especialy once we’ve jettisoned all those means we had for our livelihood.
Maybe we can all sleep outside in the winter night and not other with homes, because they just cost money. And we all know what it takes to get hold of that stuff.
So let’s have mass debate by all means, and have social intercourse, but don’t let there be a miscarriage of true scientific thought.
Above all let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water, nor indeed drown the little darling in it either.
All dogs have four legs. Dogs are mammals. We can’t say all creatures having four legs are mammals. Any more than we can say all mammals are dogs.
If the logic escapes the reader I would strongly recommend any basic logic 101 text.
Don’t let them pull the wool over your eyes dear creatures.
The next ice age may not be that far away. Oli
Icedvolvo asks a very good question: Why is there no real transparency in the debate about climate science?
You may as well ask for a rational debate on Christian science or Scientology.
Because, the proponents mouth the words climate change like the bumper sticker reads: I’m a christian, not perfect just saved.
Well kiddos, just because the green house gases are rising and the polar ice is melting, does’nt prove causality!
Well maybe the air would be cleaner without coal, and we could find better ways to generate domestic electricity.
But would global warming be attenuated?
We can only try. But if it does’nt work won’t we look like a bunch of charlies?
Especialy once we’ve jettisoned all those means we had for our livelihood.
Maybe we can all sleep outside in the winter night and not other with homes, because they just cost money. And we all know what it takes to get hold of that stuff.
So let’s have mass debate by all means, and have social intercourse, but don’t let there be a miscarriage of true scientific thought.
Above all let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water, nor indeed drown the little darling in it either.
All dogs have four legs. Dogs are mammals. We can’t say all creatures having four legs are mammals. Any more than we can say all mammals are dogs.
If the logic escapes the reader I would strongly recommend any basic logic 101 text.
Don’t let them pull the wool over your eyes dear creatures.
The next ice age may not be that far away. Oli
Earnest Lee said "I cannot see Kevin Rudd handing over any more Senate power to the Greens in the immediate term"
The Greens will get balance of power either way after the next election. It’s already the case that whenever the Liberals disagree, the government can’t get anything through the Senate without the Greens’ support - it’s just that currently they also need Fielding and Xenophon as well.
This government (and any government) would much prefer only having to negotiate with one cross-bench player - regardless of whether it is the Greens or anyone else - than with three.
No doubt the government would be a little bit happier the fewer seats the Greens have, but nowhere near as happy as they’d be only having to negotiate with the Greens, as opposed to Greens & Xenophon & Fielding. That will happen after the election, whether the Greens have 10 Senate seats or 3 (as the absolute unimaginable worst-case scenario after a half-Senate). It’s just that it will happen sooner after a double dissolution.
As for suggestions that there is "no real transparency in the climate change debate" - pffft. The process surrounding the ICCP reports alone is run through so many stages of scrutiny and review it’s not funny. To say that rigorously peer-reviewed science has "no real transparency" is just another piece of denialist propaganda which is so far removed from reality it’s not funny.