What is a ‘double dissolution’?
by Erin Maclean
Australia is three months into another election year and, as expected, speculation about when it will be held has become something of a national pastime.
While negative gearing, marriage equality and Niki Savva’s controversial new book are at the top of the (informal) campaign agenda this week, there is still persistent speculation that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull might push for a double dissolution (DD) and, with that, an early election.
The alarm bells for an early election began ringing in the lead-up to this year’s first parliamentary sitting, when the Turnbull government said it would reintroduce a bill to revive the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC). The ABCC bill, which was rejected by the Senate in 2015, would make an ideal DD trigger for the Coalition if rejected again, as Turnbull could launch his election campaign on the basis of the Labor Party’s opposition to union reform.
Turnbull has confirmed a double dissolution is a ‘live option’ and some Coalition backbenchers have come out in support of a possible DD.
But a double dissolution is the ultimate threat used to pull rogue Senators in line. It has only been followed through on six times in Australian political history — most recently, under the Hawke government in 1987.
Now, with limited time left for the Senate to vote on the ABCC bill, the Turnbull government appears to be backing away from the bill and, with that, its key DD trigger.
By no means, however, does that mean a double dissolution is off the table — that trigger is not the only one and Turnbull still has reasons to push for an early DD election.
What is it and why would Turnbull want one?
A double dissolution is, as laid out in the Constitution, a fairly extreme means of resolving disputes between the Upper and Lower houses.
If the Senate rejects a proposed law passed by the House of Representatives twice over at least three months, the Governor-General may step in and dissolve both houses to fix the deadlock. This triggers an election for the House of Representatives and the full Senate (rather than usual half).
The aim of a DD is to refresh both houses so that a friendlier Senate can be brought in — one that passes legislation that is important enough for a government to persist with.
But while the double dissolution can serve to push through a particular piece of important legislation, it does not necessarily make a hospitable Senate. When popularity is waning, a DD can result in an even more disagreeable Senate instead.
In fact, of the six times a double dissolution has been triggered since Federation, it has backfired twice — first in 1914 and again in 1983, when the triggering governments lost their majorities in the House of Representatives.
That, along with the cost and inconvenience to voters, is why the threat is rarely acted on.
It is a risky move for the Turnbull government, but it could also be a strategic one. Turnbull is still polling fairly well — although the honeymoon is over — and he likely wants to clear the decks of micro parties if the Senate reform passes. That said, even with the electoral changes, the Coalition is unlikely to win a Senate majority in a double dissolution election.
By the time an announcement is made, likely on May 11, the government may hold up to three DD triggers: the ABCC legislation — the delays of which could be carefully spun as the Senate ‘failing to pass’ — and two triggers from Abbott’s time as leader.
The first, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013, would be hard for Turnbull to make a case for after so many years. Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove still needs to initiate the dissolution of the houses and, should he doubt this bill constitutes a true deadlock, he can choose to do nothing.
But the second trigger, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, would work just as well as the ABCC bill — as Minister for Women and Employment Michaelia Cash explained yesterday.
That is why, even though the ABCC bill would make for a good campaign-launching platform for the Coalition, the ABCC delays do not eliminate the double dissolution option.
Should Australians expect a double dissolution election in 2016?
There is no clear answer as to whether a double dissolution is likely this year, but a number of constitutional requirements make the timing of the election tricky.
Because a double dissolution cannot be called in the last six months of a government’s mandated term, it must be called on or before May 11 — the day after the budget is due. This leaves limited time in parliament to make the necessary preparations, particularly to ensure the money keeps flowing for the new government’s first few weeks.
While an election could go ahead any time, the backdating of Senate terms means a DD election before July 1 will leave the Upper and Lower houses out of sync. Either a costly half-Senate election will be held on its own in early 2018, or the next government’s term will only be two years. Neither option is ideal.
To prevent that, a DD election will need to be called in May for early July — extending the typical five week campaign out to at least seven weeks, which former PM John Howard has publicly warned against. This also leaves a tight turnaround for the paperwork, as the dissolution writs must be returned in August — otherwise, those in the ministry who have been unelected for three months will need to resign.
Political commentator Antony Green has summarised the different election date options, but there are two main possibilities: a traditional election of the House of Representatives and half Senate that falls between August 6 and the end of October — as Turnbull has suggested before — or a double dissolution on or before May 11 that means a full election on July 2, 9 or 16.
But, for all the constitutional complexities and possible mishaps, Ben Eltham of New Matilda suggests the double dissolution is unlikely — and Antony Green agrees.
Tricky timing
It seems, despite the existing triggers for a double dissolution and the willingness of the Coalition to discuss a possible early election, the path of the DD is fraught with great risk and difficult timing. Though speculation abounds — this week that the budget may be brought forward to resolve some of the timing problems — the Turnbull government will have a hard time bringing it all together for a DD.
So while the double dissolution cannot be taken off the table entirely, voters are far more likely to go to the polls this year during the usual August–October election season.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
ERIN MACLEAN
Erin is a freelance journalist and PhD student at Griffith University.
Erin specialises in news media depictions of popular culture, but is particularly interested in the way media framing affects public perception and politics.
In her spare time, she runs her own video gaming blog for women at LadyGameBug.
