The Coalition Government‘s continued inability to get some of its more contentious legislation through the ever-hostile Senate is certainly not lost on anyone in the Liberal Party. Even despite massive compromise and paring back of bills in attempts to get some part of it through the Upper House, they still find themselves largely at the mercy of a ragtag group of rogue crossbench senators, each with their own individual agenda, and each bullishly sticking to it.
In fact, such is the growing frustration within the legislative core of the Government, that senior officials are starting to ponder some extreme methods of dealing with it. To wit, Prime Minister Tony Abbott has allegedly floated the idea of holding a Double Dissolution election to try and break up what he calls a “feral” senate.
The possibility of a Double Dissolution was raised by the Prime Minister at a Liberal Party dinner following the Cabinet Meeting that took place on Monday afternoon. The impetus for which was the Upper House again voting down Education Minister Christopher Pyne‘s higher education reform bills – this despite The Fixer himself claiming he’d fixed it.
Though the Abbott Government already has two pre-existing triggers for a Double Dissolution in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation abolition bill, and the Clean Energy Income Tax Rates and other amendments bill, it’s unlikely to use either of them for an immediate snap election.
Rather, should it occur, it’s likely the Government would wait until either the Higher Education reform legislation, or the re-introduced Fair Work legislation become DD triggers – i.e. when the Senate votes them down twice with a three month gap between votes, meaning both could become triggers by as early as late June.
The Government’s relationship with the Senate is notably prickly at the best of times; Attorney-General George Brandis yesterday bemoaned that it “should be a chamber of review, a house of review not a house of refusal.” Although two takeaway points there would be firstly that it technically is reviewing legislation by voting it down, what it’s not doing is acting like a house of blanket subservience; turns out it’s not to placid lap dog Senator Brandis apparently wants. And secondly, if we’re broaching the subject of refusing to do things in the Senate, he’s certainly not one to talk.
Nevertheless, the idea to call for a Double Dissolution of Parliament, with the political climate in the state that it is, is intriguing to say the least. The Coalition currently trails the Labor party 45 – 55 on a two-party preferred basis. Double Dissolutions are far more often threatened than carried through with; the last Double Dissolution to actually occur was in 1987 when the Hawke Labor Government successfully called the snap election six months ahead of time to capitalise on disunity in the opposing Liberal and National parties.
It’s worth noting that the rules of a Double Dissolution election mean that it’s theoretically easier for small parties to obtain Senate seats due to different senate quota requirements, meaning any Double D election could wind up making the Upper House even more of a motley crew than it is at present.
Whilst senior liberal officials are outwardly stating that the Government intends to serve its full term (the latest date the next Federal Election can be held is in January, 2017), there are others miffed by even the mere suggestion of a Double Dissolution, with several backbench ministers independently calling it a “bizarrely bad” idea; that the Government “would have to be on crack” to call it; and that “it would be a suicide pact.”
The internal anxiety the suggestion of this is causing Government officials in a party already wobbly at the knees is not to be underestimated. In terms of potential timelines, it’s theorised that, should it occur, it would be done shortly after the Abbott Government hands down its second Federal Budget – mooted by those within Parliament as being a far more moderate budget than last year’s slash-and-burn fiasco.
This, in and of itself, is leading some to speculate that Tony Abbott may be contemplating it as a means of safeguarding his own job from leadership challenges. After the failed Liberal Spill in January, Abbott asked the party to “give [him] until June.” Though the reality of that is that, after next week, there aren’t any more opportunities to move a leadership challenge against the Prime Minister until the budget is delivered in May. Calling a Double Dissolution shortly after the budget is delivered would ensure that Tony Abbott remains your Prime Minister by any and all means, and will drag the Liberal Party into the (albeit early) election under his own watch.
As for opposition reaction to this, the Labor party – as is their current style of opposition – have remained frustratingly quiet. Although a Labor strategist told Fairfax Media that the Liberal party did have “a realistic prospect of winning a double D.” But conversely, “it also has a bloody realistic prospect of losing.“
Whatever the case ends up being, it’s certainly not going to happen for at least a couple of months. So for now, we all play the waiting game.
…
Ahh, the waiting game sucks. Let’s play Hungry Hungry Hippos.
Photo: STR/AFP via Getty Images.
via The Guardian and SMH.
