Christopher Pyne: Double dissolution election ‘a live option’ (Australia)

news.com.au ^ | 19th February 2016

[naturalman1975]

OPPOSITION leader Bill Shorten says the government is threatening an early election to cover up for a lack of an economic plan.

Coalition strategists are weighing up whether to use the blocking of workplace laws in the Senate as a July double-dissolution election trigger.

Cabinet minister Christopher Pyne on Friday morning said a double dissolution election remained a “live option” with $30 billion of savings being blocked by the Senate.

Mr Pyne said the Federal Government’s efforts to address bracket creep and curb Australia’s ballooning debt were being hampered by Labor and the crossbench, along with attempts to clean up union corruption in the construction industry.

“The Greens are more co-operative than Labor and the crossbench,” he told the Nine Network today.

[naturalman1975]

The 'Double Dissolution' is a piece of arcane Australian Parliamentary and constitutional procedure.

Australia's system of government is to some extent a hybrid because it took the British Westminster Parliamentary system as its main model, but incorporated some ideas from the US model.

So we have a Prime Minister who is the person whose party (or coalition of parties) controls the lower House of a two chamber Parliament (as in the UK) but our two Chambers are called the 'House of Representatives' and 'Senate' as in the US. And as in the US, while the House of Representatives consists of individual representatives representing a particular area each (of something close to similar population), the Senate has an equal number of Senators for each state (we also have two territories which get a smaller number of Senators).

The House of Representatives goes to the polls simultaneously typically about every three years (but it is variable) while the Senate has fixed terms of six years, with half the Senators facing re-election every three years.

So most of the time, an Australian election constitutes a full election of the House of Representatives and a half-Senate election of half the Senators - Prime Ministers try to aim for this in order to keep the cost of elections to a minimum. But it is possible (and has occasionally happened) for a House election to happen without a Half-Senate election, or for a Half-Senate election to happen without a House one.

But we also have the 'Double Dissolution' election which is being discussed in this article - again, these are unusual.

As in the US, for a law to pass it has to pass the House and the Senate. The Double Dissolution election exists in the Australian Constitution to resolve a deadlock between the House and Senate - when the House has repeatedly passed a law and the Senate has repeatedly blocked it.

Our current (broadly conservative) government has faced one of the oddest and most hostile Senates in Australian history - generally an Australian Senate has been mostly made up by the two main groups (the Liberal/National Coalition and Labor) that can form government with perhaps one minor party and a couple of independents to deal with.

Our current Senate is very different. It has 33 government (Liberal/National) Senators, 25 Labor Senators, 10 Greens Senators, 1 Liberal Democrat Senator, 1 Family First Senator, 1 Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party Senator, 1 Palmer United Party Senator, and 4 Independents (two of whom were Palmer United Party Senators, one of whom was a Democratic Labor Party Senator, and one who has always been Independent). Labor and the Greens (both left wing parties) tend to block a lot of government legislation, which leaves the government having to try to persuade at least six of the other eight 'individuals' to support anything. With a lot of stuff this hasn't happened.

So how does a double dissolution work?

First of all, the Prime Minister needs a 'trigger'. He can't just call one.

The trigger is a piece of legislation. If the House twice passes a Bill and the Senate twice rejects that Bill, with the rejections occurring at least three months apart, but within two Parliamentary sessions, a trigger exists - the Prime Minister can ask the Governor-General for a double dissolution election.

At this point an election is called for both the House and the entire Senate.

The reason this allows a chance for the deadlock to be removed is first of all, it is likely to create a situation where the government that controls the House of Representatives also controls the Senate, and so can now pass its Bill. But in the event, the Senate still blocks the Bill, after a Double Dissolution election, a joint sitting of the House and Senate can be held on those trigger bills (which cannot be amended - they must be the same bills rejected at the second time) and they can vote as one to pass the Bill or reject it. Constitutionally the size of the Senate is set at about half the size of the House so in a joint sitting, the House has a numerical advantage over the Senate, and also, the public has just had the power to elect a new government with a specific mandate to deal with the bills.

A Prime Minister is only likely to call a double dissolution if they think they are likely to win - that is, if they believe the Australian people support what they are doing over the actions of the obstructionist Senate.

There have been six Double Dissolutions in Australia's history. Only one has lead to a joint sitting.

In two cases, the government that initiated the election lost the subsequent election. In two cases, the government that initiated the election gained control of the Senate and so no joint session was needed to pass their legislation. In one case, the Senate still blocked the legislation, so a joint sitting was held which passed it.

In the sixth case (the most recent in 1987) no joint sitting was held because after the election, somebody realised that the trigger bill was flawed in a way that would prevent it taking effect even if it was passed - and because the rules do not allow a double dissolution Bill to be amended in anyway, this could not be fixed - so the re-elected Prime Minister did not proceed with the joint sitting.

[Praxeologue]

The problem appears to be that there are not enough conservative (Liberal/National) senators. As you have explain to us here and previously, that will take time, during which time many will lose their resolve and patience. In its basic principles, this is not so unlike the U.S. system of checks and balances.

The Left, all through the English-speaking world, has this figured out. They have learned how to grab the keys to the kingdom to circumvent our wise constitutional protections. It is up to all of us to fight back by raising the alarm.

In this context, does the government want to make this issue the hill to die one? Is it considering a DD because of love of country or opportunism? Does this issue merit a popular referendum on the entire government? If I was a ordinary citizen, I would be asking these questions and assessing the behavior of politicians accordingly.