tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/double-dissolution-7541/articlesDouble dissolution – The Conversation2023-06-19T07:14:22Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2080162023-06-19T07:14:22Z2023-06-19T07:14:22ZGovernment’s housing fund legislation delayed by Greens-Coalition alliance<p>The Greens and the Coalition have teamed up again to present a vote being taken on the government’s $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. </p>
<p>Consideration of the legislation has been delayed until October 16. </p>
<p>The government at the weekend announced an immediate $2 billion for social housing – which will go to states and territories over this fortnight – hoping that would persuade the Greens to support the fund. </p>
<p>But the Greens are holding out for controls on rents, which are actually within the jurisdiction of the states. </p>
<p>Anthony Albanese, answering a Greens question in parliament, said the Greens had made themselves “irrelevant to the debate”. </p>
<p>“I understand that renters are doing it tough,” he said. “Yes, I want to do things about that”, and the government was working with the states on various measures. But “what we are not doing is destroying supply while we do it. Because the key to fixing housing is supply.” </p>
<p>If the government did what the Greens wanted there would be less supply of housing, Albanese said.. The Greens should have had “the guts” to vote against the legislation rather than deferring it. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1670615848640479237"}"></div></p>
<p>The Minister for Housing, Julie Collins, said “there is a cost to these delays.</p>
<p>"Every day of delay is more than $1.3 million that does not go to housing for people that need it. If this bill gets delayed until October, the Greens political party and the Liberals would have succeeded in delaying it for more than six months. Every six months is $250 million that could have gone to building more homes.”</p>
<p>This is the second time the Greens and Coalition have prevented a vote on the legislation. The proposed $10 billion fund would produce $500 million a year for social and affordable rental housing.</p>
<p>Finance Minister Katy Gallagher said the fund was “an important piece of national infrastructure”. </p>
<p>Opposition leader in the Senate Simon Birmingham told Sky the Coalition had “always thought that adding these billions of dollars extra to government debt for no immediate impact on the housing market was a bad idea, especially so for a policy that has no benefit in terms of addressing rates of home ownership in Australia”. </p>
<p>The Senate’s action prompted speculation that the deferral could form the initial step to having the bill qualify as double dissolution legislation. Special Minister of State Don Farrell said: “If the Senate defers bills to October, the government will regard this as the Senate failing to pass the bill, and I’m sure you understand the consequences of that”.</p>
<p>Greens leader Adam Bandt said that “it says a lot about the government that they’d rather tout this as a double dissolution trigger rather than negotiating to pass their own bill”. </p>
<p>The Constitution’s Section 57 provides that if the House of Representatives passes a bill and the Senate “rejects or fails to pass it” and after three months the lower house again passes the bill and the Senate again rejects or fails to pass it, it can become the basis for a dissolution of both houses. </p>
<p>Sydney University constitutional expert Anne Twomey said the High Court has previously held that the Senate needs a reasonable amount of time to debate and deliberate upon a bill. </p>
<p>“This may include sending it to a parliamentary committee. But in this case, the delay is not due to a need to deliberate. It is for the purpose of waiting to see if the Albanese Government will change its policy and negotiate an agreement in National Cabinet which suits the policy aim of the Greens,” Twomey said. </p>
<p>“While there is no certainty, the government would have a good case to argue that a delay of this kind amounts to a failure to pass. Even taking into account the winter recess, there is still plenty of time to properly debate the bill before 16 October”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208016/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government at the weekend announced an immediate $2 billion for social housing – which will go to states and territories over this fortnight – hoping this would get the Greens to support the fundMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/623452016-07-12T19:45:29Z2016-07-12T19:45:29ZExplainer: what happens now to the bills that triggered the double-dissolution election?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130136/original/image-20160712-9264-1gcgs0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Joint sittings of federal parliament are rare, usually only taking place for addresses by foreign leaders.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia has just had a <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-explainer-what-does-it-mean-that-were-having-a-double-dissolution-election-56671">double-dissolution election</a>. The election was called after <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-the-abcc-and-registered-organisations-bills-56676">two industrial relations bills</a> twice failed to pass the Senate. This triggered the deadlock provisions in the Constitution. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s57.html">Section 57</a> of the Constitution sets out what happens in the event of a disagreement between the House of Representatives and the Senate, when a bill fails to pass the Senate twice. </p>
<p>In this situation, the governor-general (with the prime minister’s advice) can trigger a double-dissolution election, where both the Senate and the House of Representatives are simultaneously dissolved. In a normal election, only half of the Senate is dissolved. </p>
<p>Australia’s founders envisaged there would be disagreements between the houses of parliament. The double-dissolution election procedure was intended to break any deadlocks by giving the people a say when our elected representatives in parliament cannot agree on important policy matters. </p>
<p>Following the election, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/05/coalition-will-put-abcc-bill-to-joint-sitting-despite-lacking-numbers-to-pass">has committed</a> to try to pass the bills. </p>
<h2>So, what happens next?</h2>
<p>Now that we have had the double-dissolution election, the next step is for the government to attempt again to pass the bills through the House of Representatives and Senate. </p>
<p>The government appears to have the numbers to pass the bills in the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/federal-election-results-2016-coalition-will-be-able-to-form-government/news-story/1058a620130d9fdf7d4e1fa72bc3c1f5">House of Representatives</a>. If the newly composed Senate refuses to pass the bills, the governor-general, on the prime minister’s advice, may convene a joint sitting of both houses of parliament. </p>
<p>In this joint sitting, the bills will pass only if they are supported by an absolute majority – that is, more than 50% of the total number of members of both houses. </p>
<p>If the bills still fail to pass, then the deadlock provisions in the Constitution are completed. This means that if the government wants to reintroduce the bills again, it can do so, but it will have to go through the whole rigmarole of the constitutional deadlock provisions from scratch. </p>
<p>This means trying to pass the bills through the Senate twice more and then going to a double-dissolution election once again, and then trying to pass the bills through both houses and, if the bills still don’t pass, convening yet another joint sitting. </p>
<p>It is difficult to imagine that the government would want to go down this path.</p>
<h2>Has this happened before?</h2>
<p>Australia has previously <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/house_of_representatives/powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_infosheets/infosheet_18_-_double_dissolution">had only six</a> double-dissolution elections. </p>
<p>A joint sitting of both houses has only ever happened once in Australia. In 1974, the Whitlam government convened a joint sitting to pass six bills introducing territorial representation in the Senate, Medicare and the Petroleum and Minerals Authority. These bills were passed at the joint sitting with the required absolute majority of both houses.</p>
<p>Another infamous double dissolution took place following the <a href="http://naa.gov.au/collection/snapshots/dismissal/index.aspx">Whitlam government’s dismissal</a>, after the Senate refused to pass the budget bills to provide funds for the government to operate. This provided a double-dissolution trigger. </p>
<p>Controversially, the governor-general, Sir John Kerr, dismissed Gough Whitlam for being unable to secure money to govern. Kerr appointed the opposition leader, Malcolm Fraser, as caretaker prime minister. Fraser then called a double-dissolution election, which he won by a large majority. </p>
<p>All the other deadlocks were resolved by either the government losing the election, thus rendering the bill moot (in 1914 and 1983), or gaining power in both houses to pass the bill (1951). A government has also chosen once not to proceed with a joint sitting for a double-dissolution bill following an election, in 1987.</p>
<h2>What is likely to happen?</h2>
<p>With a Senate that looks <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/australian-federal-election-2016-who-is-on-the-new-senate-crossbench-20160703-gpxgjj.html">even more difficult and unwieldy</a> than before the election and fewer government members in the House of Representatives, it is unlikely that the Turnbull government has the numbers to pass the industrial relations bills in a joint sitting. </p>
<p>So Australia is hurtling toward new constitutional territory. This may be the first time that a joint sitting of parliament will be convened only for the bill to ultimately be rejected. </p>
<p>It is possible that Turnbull will go down in constitutional and political history as being the first prime minister to take a double dissolution all the way to the end – and fail.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62345/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Now that we have had the double-dissolution election, the next step is for the government to attempt to pass the industrial relations bills through the House of Representatives and Senate again.Yee-Fui Ng, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/620482016-07-11T19:40:31Z2016-07-11T19:40:31ZTime to learn the many lessons from a long campaign<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129982/original/image-20160711-24101-p9ilwi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Malcolm Turnbull emerges from the long campaign in a weakened position, having squandered the benefits of incumbency.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Paul Miller</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It may have taken just over a week but the result of the Australian election is now decided, with Malcolm Turnbull’s Coalition to form government. But the lessons and insights from the extraordinary 2016 national poll will be debated for years among political scientists and campaign experts. </p>
<p>Like a grand social experiment, the 2016 federal election provided the chance to verify, refute or validate some of the key hypotheses of Australian politics and the strategies of the campaign playbook. </p>
<p>With 95% of Australia’s 15.7 million enrolled voters having chosen between 57 parties and 1625 candidates to elect 226 members to the federal parliament, here are some of the key things we have learned from the 2016 election.</p>
<h2>The Australian vote is fragmenting</h2>
<p>Arguably the most far-reaching dimension to the 2016 election result is the decline in the vote for Labor and the Coalition parties (the “major parties”). </p>
<p>With some notable exceptions, the vote for minor parties and independents (“other parties”) has been trending upwards since the 1950s, accelerating from the 1990s, and reached a high of 23% in this election. In South Australia, the popularity of Nick Xenophon lifted the primary vote for the non-major parties above Labor’s for the first time.</p>
<p>The rise of minor parties is driven by two factors that are unlikely to reverse. </p>
<p>The first is declining party loyalties – the number of voters who identify as a supporter of a political party is falling and voters are more likely to change their vote from one election to another creating increased volatility in election results.</p>
<p>Second, political divisions have become more complex, straddling economic, social, cultural, geographic and other issues in ways that do not line up neatly with the major parties. In the same way consumer product markets have fragmented so to have voting markets meaning people are more likely to vote for a niche party or candidate rather than one of the broad mainstream parties. </p>
<p>In the 1950s you were either a Ford family or a Holden family. Now there are more than 40 car makers in the market and literally hundreds of models. It is a similar story in the beer market and many others. </p>
<p>In this election, voters could choose from a record number of 57 parties. On one level, it is remarkable that the vote for the major parties in Australia has remained as high as it has. But the experience of other advanced democracies internationally would suggest the trend is set to continue.</p>
<p>This will have a profound impact on Australian politics. To begin with, it means the 45th parliament will have the biggest and most diverse Senate crossbench since Federation. Recent experience suggests this will make the passage of legislation difficult. </p>
<p>In the House of Representatives, minor parties and independents have won five out of 150 seats. The domination of the major parties is preserved by the preferential single-member voting system which translates a 77% share of the vote into 97% of seats in the chamber. But even with the current voting system we can expect minority governments to become more prevalent, possibly even the new normal. </p>
<p>It also means that the preference flows of minor parties and independents are now a critical factor in determining who forms government. It begs the policy question of whether the preference deals that are negotiated between the parties should be the subject of increased public scrutiny, beyond the tabloid treatment they receive at the moment.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129975/original/image-20160711-24063-ozjoe9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129975/original/image-20160711-24063-ozjoe9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129975/original/image-20160711-24063-ozjoe9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129975/original/image-20160711-24063-ozjoe9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129975/original/image-20160711-24063-ozjoe9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129975/original/image-20160711-24063-ozjoe9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129975/original/image-20160711-24063-ozjoe9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The popularity of the Nick Xenophon Team in South Australia saw the primary vote for the non-major parties pass Labor’s for the first time.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Brenton Edwards</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The media is fragmenting</h2>
<p>The decline in the influence of traditional media in modern elections is well documented, and was more pronounced than ever in the 2016 election. </p>
<p>A fragmenting media market means no single media source or outlet has a dominant influence over the electorate. It also means that the political parties are bypassing traditional media and using social media and direct channels to communicate with voters.</p>
<p>An example of the shift in media influence was the 2016 campaign run by the News Corp press that strongly backed the Coalition. <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/">The Daily Telegraph</a> published a string of highly partisan front pages attacking Bill Shorten with satirical cartoons. </p>
<p>It is hard to discern the influence of this bias given we do not know what the election result would have been without these interventions. But it clearly failed to stop a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/western-sydney-deserts-liberals-in-federal-election-nationals-hold-fort-in-nsw-20160703-gpxe3m.html">very large swing to Labor in western Sydney</a>.</p>
<p>The political parties know the role of traditional media is diminishing and increasingly prioritise direct one-to-one contact with voters through social media, emails, phone calls and door-knocking. The Liberal Party harnessed the power of popular Chinese-language social media platform WeChat to reach voters in the ethnically diverse seat of Chisholm in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne.</p>
<p>The Greens used Grindr, the world’s largest gay social network app, to reach voters in the Victorian seats of Batman and Higgins. </p>
<p>Facebook remains the king of social media in Australia, and this is where the major parties put most of their efforts. Data collated by social media tracking tool CrowdTangle shows that over the eight-week campaign Labor’s Facebook page had 708,152 interactions on its page, while the Liberal Party’s page had 341,520.</p>
<p>In the 2016 campaign, Labor identified 1.6 million voters who were persuadable in marginal seats. These voters were targeted through social media and phone calls with pro-Labor campaign information and structured conversations on issues of interest to the individual voter. </p>
<p>With the mainstream media audience seemingly more interested in My Kitchen Rules than electoral politics, this peer-to-peer communication has rapidly grown in importance to campaign strategists.</p>
<p>This development is further accelerated by a Canberra press gallery that got the forecast of the poll result and the key issues of the election spectacularly wrong. The echo chamber of the gallery concluded that Turnbull was going to win with a comfortable but reduced majority, and this influenced the way the election was covered. </p>
<p>The endless commentary about Turnbull’s personal popularity being decisive, the costings of the party policy commitments and the impact of the UK’s departure from the European Union all missed the mark. Opinion polls and social research show that the campaign staples of “health, education and jobs” were once again at the fore of voters’ minds in 2016. </p>
<p>With the press gallery not talking about these issues the parties now bypass the media to have conversations directly with voters about them. This should be cause for some serious reflection by those reporting on the election.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129979/original/image-20160711-24067-qcqkfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129979/original/image-20160711-24067-qcqkfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129979/original/image-20160711-24067-qcqkfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129979/original/image-20160711-24067-qcqkfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129979/original/image-20160711-24067-qcqkfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129979/original/image-20160711-24067-qcqkfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129979/original/image-20160711-24067-qcqkfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Social media, and Facebook in particular, played a huge role in this election.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Long election campaigns work against an incumbent government</h2>
<p>The Australian political playbook holds that long election campaigns hurt incumbents. Turnbull set out to test this theory by effectively running a record 12-week election campaign. </p>
<p>Turnbull officially announced the election on May 8, but in reality he announced it at a press conference on April 19 when he outlined his plan to reintroduce the industrial relations bills that would be a double-dissolution trigger.</p>
<p>The conventional wisdom is that a long campaign disadvantages the incumbent by giving up many of the advantages of governing. In an election the government and opposition are on a level playing field, with the opposition given close to equal media coverage. The elevated status of the prime minister is diminished as the government moves into caretaker mode and the prime minister becomes just another politician trawling the shopping centres of Australia for votes.</p>
<p>Bob Hawke was the last prime minister to run a long election campaign in 1984. The then-opposition leader, Andrew Peacock, is considered to have run a good campaign with a surprising 2% swing against the government, costing it nine seats.</p>
<p>Nearly 30 years later, the Liberal Party thought the long campaign would expose the shortcomings of Bill Shorten and the Labor opposition. Instead the Coalition suffered a 3.5% swing and lost between 13 and 15 seats, subject to final counting.</p>
<p>On one level, the published polls did not move significantly over the period of the long campaign. But Turnbull emerges from the process greatly diminished, and an abiding sense that the government squandered the benefits of incumbency with the long campaign. So the rules of the campaign playbook still stand, and we can expect it to be another 30 years before we see another long election campaign.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Next: Great scare campaigns in electoral history</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62048/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicholas Reece is a former secretary of the ALP in Victoria and was a senior adviser to Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Victorian premiers Steve Bracks and John Brumby.</span></em></p>There have been three clear lessons from this long election campaign: the vote is fragmenting, the media is fragmenting, and long election campaigns are not a good idea.Nicholas Reece, Principal Fellow - Melbourne School of Government | School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/605272016-06-05T12:34:50Z2016-06-05T12:34:50ZMajor parties have a lot to answer for in the drift to minor players<p>For those who might feel this election campaign will never end, it is worth revisiting why the voters are enduring eight weeks rather than the normal five.</p>
<p>Calling a double dissolution – the specific circumstances of which made this length of campaign necessary – was all about minimising pesky crossbenchers in the Senate.</p>
<p>The blocked industrial relations legislation was the formal reason. But the motive was to get a more amenable upper house, though the Coalition was never going to win a majority there. In this quest, the government changed the Senate voting rules, to boost the chance of holding out “micro” players.</p>
<p>But it has all got rather messy.</p>
<p>In a double dissolution, as distinct from an election for half the Senate, the quota is small enough to open the gate for “micros” even under the new voting system.</p>
<p>And public disillusionment with the major parties is such that the trend for people to support minor players, including the Greens, shows no prospect of abating. </p>
<p>The latest Newspoll has only “other parties and independents” increasing their support in the past fortnight. </p>
<p>One sign of the disillusionment is the high level of support for the Nick Xenophon Team in South Australia. Xenophon, an absolute vote magnet, appears likely to get at least three senators including himself, which would be a substantial slice of the non-Green Senate crossbench.</p>
<p>Goodness knows who else will comprise that crossbench, which ABC election analyst Antony Green predicts could be about the same size – but with a different composition – as in the last parliament when it was eight.</p>
<p>If the government is returned it would regard the Xenophon Team as potentially easier to deal with than some of the previous crossbenchers. But this could be quite complicated in practice. Xenophon is running a very populist agenda which he would presumably try hard to deliver on. Also, being leader of a group is rather different from his previous role of acting as an individual senator.</p>
<p>While Xenophon is not another Clive Palmer, the fragmentation of the Palmer United Party shows what can happen in a disparate group.</p>
<p>The government is deeply worried about Xenophon’s pulling power in South Australia, including in the lower house seat of Mayo, held by former minister Jamie Briggs who had to quit the ministry after an incident abroad involving a public servant. The Liberal jitters come despite the billions of dollars the government has promised to the state.</p>
<p>As the polls stay more or less level, the talk of a possible hung parliament inevitably increases.</p>
<p>On Saturday, Turnbull, campaigning in Adelaide, made a strong appeal for people not to use their vote to protest.</p>
<p>“A vote for anyone other than my Coalition team is a vote for chaos. It is a vote for returning to the Gillard days, the Green-Labor-independent alliance.</p>
<p>"Every single vote for Nick Xenophon, the independents or Greens or Labor brings us closer to Bill Shorten and the Greens running Australia.</p>
<p>"So now is not the time for a protest vote or a wasted vote; it is time to use your vote carefully, to prevent the chaos of a hung parliament – a hung parliament that would bring government and our economic transition to a grinding halt, costing your jobs and your future.”</p>
<p>A hung parliament is only a possibility. A Senate that would be difficult for a re-elected Turnbull government is a probability if not a certainty. The question is how difficult. </p>
<p>If Turnbull is re-elected but the new Senate is not an improvement for the Coalition over the old one, the double dissolution will have achieved little, notwithstanding that the government would be able – presuming it had a majority of the whole parliament – to get the industrial relations legislation through a joint sitting.</p>
<p>Whatever the precise composition of the Senate a re-elected Coalition would have to find a way of working with it more effectively than happened during the last term. This would be the challenge of “winning the peace”, as one government man puts it.</p>
<p>There is another, more difficult and longer-term challenge to which both Coalition and Labor should turn their minds after this election. </p>
<p>One reason – not the only one – that people are registering protest votes is that they are so alienated from the whole political process. They are protesting not just against a specific government – a traditional reason for a protest vote – but against how politics operates. And this has a lot to do with how the Coalition and Labor have conducted themselves over a long period. </p>
<p>If the major parties want to stem the drift to a larger protest vote, they need to treat the voters and the democratic process with more respect and a lot less cynicism.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/xg876-5fd09a?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/xg876-5fd09a?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/88dj6-5fd20e?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/88dj6-5fd20e?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60527/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
For those who might feel this election campaign will never end, it is worth revisiting why the voters are enduring eight weeks rather than the normal five. Calling a double dissolution – the specific circumstances…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/580472016-04-27T20:14:37Z2016-04-27T20:14:37ZState by state, it’s still Malcolm Turnbull’s election to lose<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120121/original/image-20160426-1349-xxsipz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If the opinion polls continue as they are, the Turnbull government will likely be returned with a reduced majority.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Even though it is not yet official, the 2016 election is all but set for July 2. The election will be a double-dissolution poll on the basis of the Senate’s refusal to pass the government’s bill to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is clearly of the view that an election fought on the matter of union behaviour suits his party’s strategy.</p>
<p>The graphic below shows the marginal seats by state. Three things are immediately apparent:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>New South Wales has the largest collection of ultra-marginal seats; </p></li>
<li><p>Tasmania also has a crucial mass of very marginal seats; and</p></li>
<li><p>the margins on many of these seats tend more towards 2-3% rather than under 1%. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>This list shows how difficult it will be for Labor to win the 2016 election.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=825&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=825&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=825&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Labor’s hopes for the 2016 election have been buoyed by indicators of a decline in popular support for the Coalition government and, to a lesser extent, for Turnbull himself. </p>
<p>Soon after ascending to the leadership, opinion polling indicated that Turnbull and his government enjoyed a surge in support. Turnbull probably should have gone to an early election at that point. But, for whatever reason, he decided instead to allow a series of ultimately fruitless “debates” to occur over taxation, wages policy and federal-state financial relations. </p>
<p>These poorly handled debates, and some internal instability instigated by supporters of the deposed leader Tony Abbott, have contributed to the government’s falling popularity.</p>
<p>The decline in the government’s position in the opinion polls, however, has not been so extensive as to constitute a sign of imminent defeat. There has been a swing back to Labor since Turnbull’s ascendancy, and Labor looks like it will improve its position from the last election. </p>
<p>Labor’s rise will be due more to the fact that its defeat in 2013 was so bad that a recovery in its vote and representative numbers was inevitable. Labor could hardly have performed more poorly than it did in 2013. The polls are not indicating anything more than a slight correction on 2013.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/1gSZR/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="250"></iframe>
<p>This theme is emphasised when the data is broken down by state. Both Newspoll and Ipsos find a recovery in support for Labor in every state, but not to any particularly significant level – with the exception of Western Australia.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/JlMc1/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="285"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/CCBPm/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="290"></iframe>
<p>The problem for Labor is that Western Australia has few marginal seats. Support for the Liberal and National parties has fallen since the election – but not by much. However, Ipsos finds a dramatic fall in support in Western Australia and South Australia.</p>
<p>More importantly for the Coalition, support in NSW and Queensland remains quite strong. Of the 20 most marginal seats, three are in Queensland and seven are in NSW. The additional seats that Labor would need to win to secure a majority are also in NSW and Queensland. These are the two battleground states in which primary support for the Coalition is much stronger than it is for Labor.</p>
<p>The prospect of an equal outcome in the House of Representatives (a “hung parliament”) can’t be entirely discounted, although traditional political science views equal outcomes in single member electoral district elections with plurality (that is, majoritarian) voting as improbable. In theory, such systems should reward parties winning a majority of the vote an exaggerated majority. </p>
<p>This is the norm in Australian elections. But, as 2010 showed, “hung” parliaments are possible. It is likely that there will be a crossbench after the 2016 election made up of at least one Green (Adam Bandt in Melbourne) and independents Bob Katter (Kennedy), Cathy McGowan (Indi) and possibly Andrew Wilkie (Denison). </p>
<p>This would be a handy enough collection of crossbench MPs. There could be more if Tony Windsor is elected in New England, and if Nick Xenophon’s party upsets traditional voting alignments in South Australia. Both Newspoll and Ipsos have indicated severe weakening of support for the major parties in that state, thus adding another degree of difficulty to the contest. </p>
<p>The swings against the Coalition occurring in the polls are in states with comparatively few seats or, in the case of Victoria, comparatively few marginal government seats. Queensland and NSW are the key battlegrounds and, so far, the polls are indicating that the Coalition vote is holding up.</p>
<p>With the writs for the new election still to be issued and the campaign yet to be in full swing, opinion polls are indicating that the Coalition will be returned with a reduced majority.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58047/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Economou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Despite a recent surge in the polls, the distribution of marginal seats means it will be difficult for Labor to win the coming federal election.Nick Economou, Senior Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/580762016-04-19T13:01:25Z2016-04-19T13:01:25ZIn election countdown, Turnbull has to juggle ‘governing’ and ‘campaigning’<p>Malcolm Turnbull was in full lawyer mode when he confirmed on Tuesday the July 2 double dissolution, hedging his wording to meet constitutional niceties.</p>
<p>He said that “an appropriate time” after the May 3 budget he would ask Governor-General Peter Cosgrove to dissolve both houses of parliament “for an election, which I expect to be held on 2 July”.</p>
<p>Pressed by frustrated reporters on why he wasn’t being more explicit, Turnbull said he was paying due respect to the governor-general.</p>
<p>In Question Time – the last before parliament resumes for budget week – Opposition Leader Bill Shorten briefly surfed in on this prime ministerial pedantry. Shorten accused Turnbull of being “paralysed”, although he’d have known this was nothing more than a courtesy – and perhaps a subtle contrast with Stephen Conroy’s discourtesy to Cosgrove on Monday.</p>
<p>In seeking a double dissolution election, a government presents its “trigger” bills to establish there is a deadlock between the houses, so the constitutional conditions have been met for the governor-general to act.</p>
<p>The Turnbull government has undisputed triggers in the rejected industrial relations legislation, including restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC).</p>
<p>While what formally triggers such an election is often not much in evidence in the campaign, the government is linking its commitment to the ABCC into both its broad economic story and its anti-union message.</p>
<p>In Tuesday’s news conference at a Canberra building site, Turnbull said the ABCC’s restoration after an election win was part of the government’s economic plan, every element of which – including innovation, free trade, competition reform, the defence white paper, shipbuilding investments – “is focused on delivering jobs”.</p>
<p>The government’s immediate challenge is juggling “campaigning” with “governing”. “Governing” carries more authority; besides, the Coalition wants to avoid a Labor argument getting traction that this is a semi-caretaker period so it shouldn’t be making controversial decisions that could commit a successor government.</p>
<p>“I just want to be very clear that we are governing,” Turnbull said. “We have a lot of decisions to make, not least of which is the budget.”</p>
<p>In the Coalition partyroom, Treasurer Scott Morrison erected a high bar for that budget, saying it wasn’t a “normal or typical” one because it would be “a jump-off point for a federal election”, providing the foundation of the economic plan to be taken to voters.</p>
<p>Morrison listed three tasks for the budget: to stick to the government’s plan for jobs and growth; to support a sustainable tax system, focused on investment, that would support expenditure; and to ensure the government lived within its means, just as households must do.</p>
<p>Anticipating whatever tax changes are in the budget – the trimming of superannuation concessions has been widely canvassed – Morrison allowed for altering the mix of taxes but not the overall burden.</p>
<p>As it prepares its election pitch the government has to urgently address the need to be seen to be doing something about banks’ bad behaviour.</p>
<p>Backbenchers talked banks in the party room, with a couple urging a royal commission – to which the government remains adamantly opposed – while others complained about the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).</p>
<p>Aware it is bleeding in the debate about a royal commission, with Shorten painting the Liberals as “defending vested interests and the big banks”, the government is about to beef up ASIC, responding to a report commissioned by Joe Hockey.</p>
<p>Morrison told the party meeting ASIC had to be more “focused”; it required greater surveillance capability and a more prosecutorial attitude. He said the government had accepted the recommendations of the financial systems inquiry for increased penalties and a capacity for ASIC to intervene in financial products.</p>
<p>On Wednesday the government will announce a package of about A$120 million over several years for ASIC’s operations. The banks will be stung to recover the cost.</p>
<p>Turnbull is also moving to fill in gaps in Coalition education policy. While at the recent Council of Australian Governments meeting the government indicated what funding it will provide to the states for hospitals, it left hanging the money for schools, which did not have to be settled so quickly.</p>
<p>But given Labor is making a big schools offer, the government can’t go through an election campaign staying mum. Nor can it avoid detailing its higher education policy – so botched in the 2014 budget.</p>
<p>Asked about these areas Turnbull said: “You can be very safe in assuming that our education policy will be clearly set out between now and the election.”</p>
<p>While the government has public gaps in its education plans, Labor is yet to spell out its health policy. One question – which Shorten dodged on Tuesday – is whether Labor would leave the health insurance rebate intact.</p>
<p>Another question he avoided is whether a Labor government would restore the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, scrapped by parliament this week. The tribunal might be an article of faith with the opposition’s union base, but a pledge to bring it back would give ammunition to Turnbull, who claimed the abolition saves 50,000 jobs.</p>
<p>Shorten told caucus that beyond Turnbull’s popularity, the government had nothing.</p>
<p>At a news conference he boiled down Labor’s pitch. “Labor is ready for this election because we know what we stand for. Decent jobs, well-funded education, quality health care, protecting Medicare, renewable energy encouraged to take up the burden of climate change, and a fair taxation system.”</p>
<p>Despite Turnbull’s popularity – still high though it has progressively declined – Labor is not shying away from directly targeting leadership. “Australians are getting increasingly sick and tired of a prime minister who dithers and does not deliver,” Shorten said. “In the last seven months plus, we’ve seen a prime minister slowly shrink into his job.”</p>
<p>This targeting is a mark of how far Shorten and Labor have come. </p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/wm9y6-5e8e62?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/wm9y6-5e8e62?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58076/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Malcolm Turnbull was in full lawyer mode when he confirmed on Tuesday the July 2 double dissolution, hedging his wording to meet constitutional niceties. He said that “an appropriate time” after the May…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/579882016-04-18T20:12:33Z2016-04-18T20:12:33ZExplainer: the road to a July 2 double-dissolution election<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119078/original/image-20160418-1514-gaop2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Malcolm Turnbull appears to have built his government’s electoral strategy on contesting a double-dissolution election.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia appears set for a double-dissolution federal election on July 2 after the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-the-abcc-and-registered-organisations-bills-56676">government’s bill</a> to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2016/apr/18/polls-on-a-knife-edge-as-parliament-resumes-for-a-special-sitting-politics-live?page=with:block-57149a5fe4b0f7944b3e3e76#block-57149a5fe4b0f7944b3e3e76">failed to pass</a> the Senate – again.</p>
<h2>How double dissolutions work</h2>
<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull appears to have built his government’s electoral strategy on contesting a <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-double-dissolution-elections-and-why-might-we-soon-have-one-56134">double-dissolution election</a>. <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s57.html">Section 57</a> of the Constitution allows the governor-general to dissolve both the House of Representatives and the Senate and hold fresh elections if the Senate twice rejects a bill.</p>
<p>This, according to Westminster tradition, can only be done if the prime minister advises the governor-general to do so.</p>
<p>If the government is returned after winning the subsequent election (and the houses disagree again on the same bill), a joint sitting of both houses may be held to resolve the matter.</p>
<p>Unlike the House of Representatives, in which all seats are up for election, only half of the 12 senators from each state are up for election at a normal poll. At a double-dissolution election, however, all 12 senators are up for election from each state.</p>
<h2>What about the budget?</h2>
<p>Despite apparent <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-scott-morrison-emasculated-by-malcolm-turnbulls-budget-timing-labor-20160321-gnn6ov.html">miscommunication</a> between the prime minister and treasurer, the budget has been brought forward a week to May 3. This is the biggest opportunity for the government to try and set its policy course and demonstrate to the electorate why it deserves another term in office.</p>
<p>Bringing the budget forward will also bring forward the budget reply speech, which is usually delivered by the opposition leader a couple of nights after the budget is handed down. </p>
<p>This speech will present Bill Shorten and Labor with a platform to present themselves as an attractive alternative to the Coalition. It would serve as a campaign launch of sorts. Labor could signal the policies it would pursue if elected to government.</p>
<h2>Calling the election</h2>
<p>With the budget and reply speech out of the way, the government will be free to call the double dissolution by May 11 and hold the election on July 2.</p>
<p>Doing so will ensure the government reduces the potential complications of <a href="http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2016/03/senate-electoral-reform-double-dissolutions-and-section-64-of-the-constitution.html#more">backdating Senate terms</a>. </p>
<p>A July 2 double-dissolution election would also mean that the government would have the full three years to govern.</p>
<h2>The exodus from Canberra</h2>
<p>Having a clearer sense of the election’s timing, MPs will leave Canberra and return to their electorates to embark on the final stage of campaign preparations.</p>
<p>Traditionally, it’s the MPs who hold seats with fine margins (from about 5% and under) who will engage in vigorous campaigning to head off their challengers.</p>
<p>This will be <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-retail-politics-16997">most evident</a> in the shopping centres, cafés, small businesses and a range of community spaces that will be awash with candidates meeting with constituents, hearing their concerns and kissing their babies. Hard-hats and hi-vis jackets will be donned and sleeves will be rolled back. Partisan volunteers will be enlisted. The traditional stuffing of mailboxes with party paraphernalia will ensue.</p>
<p>A challenge for candidates, their staff, the media and commentators will be the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-long-election-campaign-is-not-necessarily-a-big-risk-for-turnbull-56666">length of the campaign</a>. Usually, a federal campaign is around five weeks but this campaign will go beyond seven, if called for July 2 on May 11. With more campaign time comes more potential for gaffes and voter fatigue.</p>
<p>Australia’s 44th parliament may be coming to an end, but there will be plenty of political action before the 45th can start.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57988/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zareh Ghazarian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia’s 44th parliament may be coming to an end, but there will be plenty of political action before the 45th can start.Zareh Ghazarian, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/580112016-04-18T14:08:18Z2016-04-18T14:08:18ZTurnbull looks like a sprinter but is in a marathon<p>When the politicians arrived in Canberra for their special parliamentary session, it was obvious everyone wanted to do what was necessary for a July 2 election, and do it quickly.</p>
<p>Instead of taking weeks to consider the industrial relations legislation, the Senate by dinnertime Monday had given the government its second double-dissolution trigger, by rejecting the resurrection of the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC).</p>
<p>Then the legislation to scrap the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which the government only introduced on Monday morning, passed both houses in the day.</p>
<p>Government and opposition have been priming for weeks for the July 2 double dissolution. The pivotal crossbenchers, who held the election in their hands, had variously decided a double dissolution was in their interests or resigned themselves to the political oblivion it will bring.</p>
<p>With the government’s support uncomfortably low and in danger of further erosion without a circuit-breaker, Malcolm Turnbull has every interest in getting to the polls ASAP. After the build-up, it would have been awkward if the Senate had capitulated and the election had had to be rescheduled some months on.</p>
<p>Labor, with the numbers to defeat the ABCC bill, had the motive not to delay. It didn’t want many days of well-aired debate about union bad behaviour.</p>
<p>As it was, Labor embarrassed itself on Monday, thanks to the extraordinary attack by its deputy Senate leader Stephen Conroy on Governor-General Peter Cosgrove.</p>
<p>Conroy’s comparison of Cosgrove’s proroguing the parliament with John Kerr’s sacking of Gough Whitlam was absurd as well as offensive. Cosgrove acted, as he properly should have, on the advice of his prime minister, and Turnbull’s advice to him was perfectly in order under the Constitution. Kerr defied and deceived his prime minister.</p>
<p>We will remember 2016 as the endless election campaign.</p>
<p>We’ve been in a faux campaign for nearly a month – ever since Turnbull gave the Senate the ultimatum to pass the industrial relations bills or face the people.</p>
<p>A double dissolution was thought from the start to be Turnbull’s preference. Some crossbenchers say the government wasn’t serious about negotiating on the ABCC legislation, although certain demands were out of the ballpark even if the government had been receptive.</p>
<p>While we are now sure of the election’s date and nature, we’re still a while from its formal calling. That will follow budget week – probably on the weekend of May 7-8.</p>
<p>Meanwhile the government is going hell for leather not only to get the budget finalised but to deal with outstanding items including whatever it intends to say about the submarine contract, so vital to South Australian seats.</p>
<p>Budgets are always important but seldom quite as crucial as the one that Treasurer Scott Morrison will deliver on May 3.</p>
<p>It would sour the start of the formal campaign if it were off-key, got a thumbs-down from the media, and the public reacted negatively.</p>
<p>This week’s Newspoll indicated voters want an economically cautious budget. Asked what the priority of the next government should be, 39% said reduce spending to pay down debt, 26% said reduce spending to cut taxes, while 23% said increase spending on government programs.</p>
<p>But what people say when talking in a poll and how they react to specific measures can be quite different.</p>
<p>The government needs its budget to be seen as both responsible and robust. It has to satisfy the fiscal imperatives – and the rating agency Moody’s delivered a sharp warning about the dangers of debt last week. It should not be a do-nothing budget. Among other areas, eyes will be on tax, where initial sweeping ambitions have shrunk muchly.</p>
<p>With polling showing Turnbull has disappointed the hopes and expectations of many voters, he and his team can’t afford to do so again on May 3. No pressure, Scott Morrison, but you are headed into the test of your political life.</p>
<p>Despite the polls, most observers see Turnbull as favourite to win the election. But Shorten enters the coming weeks very well placed – an extraordinary turnaround given his earlier position.</p>
<p>Labor has been strategic and bold. It has not just released a body of policy but been willing to take risks with it. Ultimate judgements about those risks – especially whether it has gone too far on negative gearing – must wait.</p>
<p>But most significantly, Labor has been able to nail what has emerged as Turnbull’s vulnerability – his failure so far to articulate clearly what he stands for, to set out a course and hold to it. The opposition has developed a narrative about Turnbull’s lack of narrative.</p>
<p>The length and the unusual nature of this campaign, with its stages – pre-budget, then from budget to formal announcement, followed by the campaign proper – will require extreme stamina and steadiness from both Turnbull and Shorten. It will be hard to find enough content to fill all those weeks. Without sufficient content, there is the danger, especially for Turnbull, of wandering into quicksand.</p>
<p>It is not just the leaders’ standing as they go into a campaign that’s important. How the campaign evolves week by week can be decisive. Given Turnbull’s tendency to a discursive style, one would think a short sharp sprint might be safest. Instead he has to run a marathon.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/xdwwc-5e609a?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/xdwwc-5e609a?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58011/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
When the politicians arrived in Canberra for their special parliamentary session, it was obvious everyone wanted to do what was necessary for a July 2 election, and do it quickly. Instead of taking weeks…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/578792016-04-15T02:51:42Z2016-04-15T02:51:42ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on Clive Palmer<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3DQcM5AbOgE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>An administrator’s report into Queensland Nickel released earlier this week suggests that Clive Palmer may have acted as a shadow director of the company before hundreds of workers were sacked. </p>
<p>University of Canberra Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Education Nick Klomp and Michelle Grattan discuss how it all went wrong for the businessman-turned-politician. Meanwhile, as parliament prepares to return next week, the government has been dropping hints about what can be expected in the May budget.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57879/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>University of Canberra Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Education Nick Klomp and Michelle Grattan discuss how it all went wrong for Clive Palmer.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/578052016-04-14T20:48:15Z2016-04-14T20:48:15ZGrattan on Friday: Turnbull sees even a difficult new Senate as an opportunity for a fresh start<p>Malcolm Turnbull says bluntly that he expects the coming special Senate sitting to reject the industrial legislation. Labor’s Penny Wong indicates the opposition won’t be playing silly buggers by trying to delay the bills.</p>
<p>As parliamentarians prepare to return to Canberra next week, both sides just want to get to the double dissolution now regarded as virtually certain.</p>
<p>Employment Minister Michaelia Cash, with carriage of the legislation, has been catapulted centre stage just months after she was one of the three women promoted to cabinet when Turnbull became leader.</p>
<p>Experienced in industrial law from her solicitor days, Cash was in the small group at the Lodge the night Turnbull finalised his strategy to have parliament recalled, with the threat of a double dissolution if the Senate refused to pass the industrial relations bills.</p>
<p>One government source says Cash has “surprised on the upside” in her performance in the Turnbull ranks.</p>
<p>The bills at the centre of the double-dissolution play resurrect the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) and toughen trade union governance.</p>
<p>But recently added to the agenda for the special parliamentary session – though not relevant to the double dissolution – is the government’s move to scrap the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, following a new pay decision that small operators say would send many of them out of business.</p>
<p>This is also in Cash’s bailiwick. The government initially intended to put the ruling on hold until early next year, while promising that if re-elected it would abolish the tribunal. But then, sensing it could get the Senate numbers, it decided to push ahead at once with abolition. This adds to its anti union, pro small business election narrative.</p>
<p>While it is fairly confident it has the needed support, the government is also adopting a belt-and-braces approach by putting forward the delay option too.</p>
<p>It’s a different story with the industrial relations bills. Although the Registered Organisations legislation is already a double-dissolution trigger, it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility that the required six crossbenchers could be persuaded to support it with some compromises. But it is nearly impossible to see the coming weeks bringing a deal on the ABCC.</p>
<p>Anyway, the government has no incentive. The momentum is now so strong for a July 2 double dissolution that it would be quite awkward if the industrial legislation were passed, forcing Turnbull to back off and re-gear for a later normal election. In these circumstances extra time might harm rather than help him.</p>
<p>Yet the benefits of a double dissolution for Turnbull in terms of the Senate are debatable. ABC election analyst Antony Green calculates that, even with the recently reformed voting system, there is a strong prospect a re-elected Turnbull government would face <a href="http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2016/04/the-turnbull-governments-senate-position-would-be-little-better-after-a-double-dissolution.html">another potentially difficult upper house</a>.</p>
<p>“There are serious questions whether a double dissolution would be of any benefit to the government’s Senate position,” Green wrote. “A double dissolution is unlikely to deliver the Coalition more Senate seats than it currently holds. The government would still need the support of up to half a dozen crossbench senators to pass legislation.”</p>
<p>But the government takes the view that a new Senate, regardless of its crossbench component, would present a fresh start. It sees the present upper house as the “Abbott” Senate, afflicted by the former prime minister’s broken promises and fractured relationships. Turnbull could argue to a new Senate that his re-elected government had a mandate, and launch a charm offensive.</p>
<p>Cash is in the fortunate position that whatever happens to the industrial relations legislation, she won’t look bad.</p>
<p>If, contrary to all indications, the crossbench senators caved, it would be a victory for which she as negotiator would be able to claim some credit. If, as expected, they don’t, the government moves on to the double dissolution considered all along to be Turnbull’s preferred position.</p>
<p>Turnbull on Wednesday anticipated the industrial relations bills’ defeat: “every indication we have is that they will be rejected”. The Senate had voted against the ABCC once, and the Registered Organisations bill three times, he said. “So if the past is any guide to future performance then you would expect it wouldn’t be passed.”</p>
<p>Wong, Labor’s Senate leader, on Thursday confirmed Labor will not try to prevent the bills being considered, as some had speculated. “We will deal with these bills. We won’t be delaying,” she said. “If Malcolm Turnbull wants a double-dissolution election, we’re ready for an election.”</p>
<p>Turnbull’s tactic of the special sitting is not risk-free for him. The Coalition is limiting the dangers presented by multiple Question Times by having the lower house sit only two days next week and not at all the following one.</p>
<p>But Labor already has a boxful of ammunition for the lower house Question Times on Monday and Tuesday. The government is on the back foot in resisting a royal commission into the banks’ bad behaviour. More serious is this week’s assessment from Moody’s credit rating agency, ominously highlighting the debt issue – “a credit negative for Australia” – and contesting Treasurer Scott Morrison’s repeated insistence there is not a revenue problem.</p>
<p>Meanwhile at week’s end the hyperactive Cash was in Townsville, to deal with another issue on her crowded plate – the fallout for workers of the collapse of Clive Palmer’s Queensland Nickel.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/xdwwc-5e609a?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/xdwwc-5e609a?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57805/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Malcolm Turnbull says bluntly that he expects the coming special Senate sitting to reject the industrial relations legislation. Labor’s Penny Wong indicates the opposition won’t try to delay the bills.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/574492016-04-07T20:08:42Z2016-04-07T20:08:42ZGrattan on Friday: Banks’ bad behaviour becomes latest pre-election jousting ground<p>Next week Malcolm Turnbull will briefly take one foot off the domestic treadmill for his first visit to China as prime minister, going to Shanghai as well as Beijing.</p>
<p>With a large contingent of Australian businesspeople in his Shanghai audience on Thursday, Turnbull will put his familiar narrative of Australia’s economic transition squarely in the context of its major driver – the changes underway in the Chinese economy. In Beijing he will meet Premier Li Keqiang and President Xi Jinping. </p>
<p>The tensions in the South China Sea, on which Turnbull has been forthright, will be canvassed, but the emphasis will be on shared interests.</p>
<p>Turnbull will play up future opportunities as the two countries grapple with their respective new economic circumstances. But the costs of China’s transition were rammed home this week when the mining and steel producing group Arrium went into voluntary administration, with big job losses a threat. Chinese steel exports have flooded international markets and driven prices down; iron ore prices have plummeted as demand from China has fallen.</p>
<p>Arrium’s plight has raised another political problem for South Australian federal Liberals, who are already hanging out for an announcement that the new submarines will be built or substantially built in their state.</p>
<p>Bill Shorten reacted to the Arrium situation with an interventionist approach, including saying “I, for one, haven’t swallowed a right-wing economic textbook and simply pretended there is no role for government to help with co-operative investment”.</p>
<p>With parliament returning for its special session on April 18, the budget on May 3 and the general expectation of an election on July 2, the political war is presently in a semi hiatus – fire being exchanged, but still short of full battlefield engagement.</p>
<p>This week’s Newspoll, showing the Coalition behind Labor – 49-51% – for the first time since Turnbull became prime minister has had a psychological effect beyond the importance of the actual numbers. Shorten’s performances have a note of confidence; Turnbull is under greater pressure.</p>
<p>On Thursday night Shorten faced a “people’s forum” in Brisbane, where he answered ten questions from an audience of 100 swinging voters. Afterwards 68% said they were more likely to vote Labor as a result of hearing him, 9% said less likely, and 23% were undecided.</p>
<p>In general, Labor tails are up. But the opposition’s hard heads are realistic – they are not predicting Labor will win the election.</p>
<p>Labor is currently better placed than the government in two areas which resonate with ordinary people. In each case Turnbull handed an advantage to his opponent.</p>
<p>Most obviously, Turnbull’s saying last week – in the context of his now-dead state income tax plan – that it would be logical for the states to have sole funding responsibility for government schools was pure gold for Shorten.</p>
<p>Shorten has also got a useful break from this week’s focus on the bad behaviour in the banking sector. Speaking at a Westpac function – a day after that bank was targeted by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for allegedly manipulating a benchmark interest rate – Turnbull gave bankers generally a sharp lecture about ethics, which have been widely breached.</p>
<p>Turnbull was correct in his criticism of the banking sector’s indefensible conduct but his comments prompted the obvious question: what was he going to do about it?</p>
<p>The government rejected the calls – including from its own backbenchers John Williams and Warren Entsch – for a royal commission. This allowed Shorten to respond with the line that “I think Australians are sick of politicians who talk tough and do nothing”.</p>
<p>Shorten is moving towards proposing a royal commission – which would focus on the culture in the financial services sector, not on issues of stability, because that is not in question.</p>
<p>One would think that would be popular with voters. The government is likely to counter by promising more resources to the agencies overseeing the sector.</p>
<p>Both sides are now looking to their tactics for the special session called for the Senate to consider the Coalition’s industrial relations legislation. What’s been heard from the crossbenchers this week has not raised any serious prospect of success for the bill to resurrect the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC). </p>
<p>The government won’t meet the demand from some crossbenchers for a wide anti-corruption body, although recent revelations of various rorts and scandals have made its case against less simple to run.</p>
<p>The optics and political dynamics of the three-week session will be important. The government wants to have the House of Representatives, which has little work to do, sitting for as short a period as possible, minimising the number of Question Times.</p>
<p>There has been speculation that those opposed to the industrial relations legislation might try to frustrate the Senate’s proceedings. Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm told the National Press Club that “if Labor moved a motion on the 18th or 19th of April to adjourn the Senate until 3 or 10 May, I reckon most of my crossbench colleagues would support it”.</p>
<p>But senior Labor sources predict a normal debate, saying the opposition won’t be disruptive – unlike on the extraordinary “pyjama night”, when the Senate debated voting reform. Then, Labor was on the losing side; in the ABCC debate it is expected, on present indications, to have the numbers to defeat the legislation.</p>
<p>If Labor sticks to this strategy, the Senate may need well under the allocated three weeks to consider the legislation. With the government, Labor and the crossbench now believing that they are headed for a July 2 election, all players have an interest in minimising the days they spend in Canberra, to maximise the time they are on the ground for campaigning.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/7nrs8-5e34b0?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/7nrs8-5e34b0?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/mxpw3-5e2cdb?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/mxpw3-5e2cdb?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57449/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Next week Malcolm Turnbull will briefly take one foot off the domestic treadmill for his first visit to China as prime minister, going to Shanghai as well as Beijing.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/568182016-03-24T20:51:48Z2016-03-24T20:51:48ZGrattan on Friday: What’s bad for Bill Shorten? Too much election focus on the unions<p>Bill Shorten should be praying those pesky crossbenchers give in to Malcolm Turnbull and pass the government’s industrial legislation.</p>
<p>Unless they do – and so far there doesn’t seem much prospect – the bad behaviour of some unions, notably the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), will be right in the centre of a double-dissolution campaign.</p>
<p>That can’t be good for Shorten, who has been weak on the issue. While he insists Labor has zero tolerance for instances of union thuggery and corruption, he tends to minimise the problem. </p>
<p>The impression remains that he is too much under the influence of the unions generally and in particular is unwilling to robustly distance himself and his party from the CFMEU, which donates large amounts to the ALP and helped Shorten’s numbers on difficult issues at last year’s ALP national conference.</p>
<p>There is not just a matter of perception, but one of substance. Put bluntly, it is disturbing that the CFMEU would be well placed to influence a Shorten government.</p>
<p>Shorten should have confronted the excessive power unions have in the ALP’s structure. He should have taken on the CFMEU. He should not have as his workplace relations spokesman Brendan O'Connor, brother of CFMEU national secretary Michael O'Connor.</p>
<p>Shorten belatedly put forward the opposition’s own proposals but Labor would be better placed if it had allowed passage of the government’s legislation toughening union governance. This is one of the bills that will be before the recalled Senate.</p>
<p>As for the legislation to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) – also to be considered in the special sitting – the ALP argues it restricts people’s rights and breaches the principle of equality before the law by separating out one sector for special treatment. </p>
<p>But Shorten is unlikely to win the debate in the public arena, given what came out of the royal commission into trade unions and the large number of CFMEU officials and delegates now before the courts for industrial breaches.</p>
<p>Polling done by Essential published this week found 35% supported reestablishing the ABCC, with 17% opposed, 27% neither supporting nor opposing, and 22% “don’t knows”. In October 2013, 29% supported bringing the ABCC back; 22% opposed.</p>
<p>If the crossbenchers passed the bills in coming weeks, Turnbull would have a victory but there would not be a double dissolution, and industrial relations would not be so sharply profiled when the election campaign came. Labor would have more opportunity to find the government’s weaknesses, and to elevate its own issues, especially health and education.</p>
<p>Of course even in a double dissolution triggered by the industrial relations legislation, economic management and tax will be core issues. Turnbull, presumably assuming a double dissolution, has merged the tax package into the budget, now on May 3. This gives what otherwise could be an anorexic budget a centrepiece, and helps offset the fact that the tax reform is less ambitious than once hoped.</p>
<p>Also, it fits the flagged company tax cut into a broader economic context. A poll done for Sky News underlined what every Coalition backbencher would know – a company tax cut is not something ordinary voters are hanging out for. </p>
<p>Asked to choose from a list of what the government’s highest priority should be, 46% said fixing the budget and returning to surplus, 27% nominated spending more on education, 25% said personal income tax cuts and only 3% opted for company tax cuts.</p>
<p>This is the Coalition’s third budget. The first deeply soured people’s views of the Abbott government and its treasurer, Joe Hockey, and also heavily circumscribed the framing of the following one. As he struggles with this last budget of the term, the pre-election one, Treasurer Scott Morrison is working against the background of a money tree with few leaves and a relationship with Turnbull that has become poor.</p>
<p>His colleagues and his boss will be closely watching how well he does in selling the budget’s tax and other measures. There won’t want to be stuff ups.</p>
<p>Politics is a competitive game, and Morrison has a potential rival sitting further along the frontbench. Former Western Australian treasurer Christian Porter gave up state politics to pack his bags for Canberra in 2013. Porter was on track to be premier; his eyes look beyond his present social services ministry.</p>
<p>As a member of cabinet’s expenditure review committee, Porter is, in the words of one source, “active without overdoing it”, and some Liberals are already speculating he would be a good treasurer for a re-elected Turnbull government.</p>
<p>Morrison is not deputy Liberal leader, a post carrying the right to choose one’s portfolio. His future, if the government is returned, would be totally in the hands of Turnbull, who has already shown a ruthless streak in dealing with ministers – ask Ian Macfarlane, who was dropped. </p>
<p>Morrison earned the treasury job because at the time he was seen as a good performer. Potentially, he has to earn that job all over again.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/ve99p-5d9281?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/ve99p-5d9281?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56818/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Bill Shorten should be praying those pesky crossbenchers give in to Malcolm Turnbull and pass the government’s industrial legislation.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/568032016-03-24T01:13:51Z2016-03-24T01:13:51ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on Turnbull’s double-dissolution play<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3YsCtuuqKBA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Malcolm Turnbull’s move to have the governor-general recall parliament, using an often-forgotten constitutional power, caught many political players off guard. He’s put a tough choice to the Senate crossbench: pass the government’s industrial relations legislation or face the people at a July 2 double-dissolution election. </p>
<p>University of Canberra Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research Frances Shannon and Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan examine how Turnbull’s double-dissolution play will heighten the pressure on Bill Shorten and the crossbenchers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56803/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Malcolm Turnbull’s move to have the governor-general recall parliament, using an often-forgotten constitutional power, caught many political players off guard.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/561342016-03-21T21:43:15Z2016-03-21T21:43:15ZExplainer: what are double-dissolution elections? And why might we soon have one?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115749/original/image-20160321-30921-16irq7k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Malcolm Turnbull has taken a series of steps to clear the path to a double-dissolution election.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Monday <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-ultimatum-july-2-double-dissolution-unless-reconvened-senate-passes-industrial-relations-bills-56586">laid down an ultimatum</a> to the Senate: pass the government’s industrial relations legislation or face a double-dissolution election.</p>
<p>The Senate will sit from April 18 to consider <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5129">two</a> <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5130">bills</a> that would reinstate the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), and the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5422">Registered Organisations bill</a>, which would establish a body to provide greater investigatory and information-gathering powers over unions.</p>
<p>Turnbull also <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/03/21/budget-surprise-even-treasurer">announced</a> the budget will be handed down a week early, on May 3. This move clears the way for a double-dissolution election.</p>
<p>So, what is a double-dissolution election? How does it differ from an ordinary election? And why is timing so important?</p>
<h2>What’s the difference?</h2>
<p>In an ordinary election, all seats in the House of Representatives – but only half the seats in the Senate – are up for grabs. </p>
<p>Senators are elected for a six-year term. Half are up for re-election every three years.</p>
<p>But, in a double-dissolution election, there is a full, rather than the usual half, Senate election. All 76 Senate seats are vacated.</p>
<h2>What is a double-dissolution election?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/%7E/link.aspx?_id=F74707A5A4934E05A67EE5969B156435&_z=z">Section 57</a> of the Constitution sets out a mechanism for resolving disputes between the two houses of parliament that arise when the government cannot get its legislation through the Senate.</p>
<p>If a bill has passed the House of Representatives but the Senate either fails to pass or rejects it on two occasions – with a period of at least three months between each attempt – the government can request the governor-general dissolve both houses of parliament and a double-dissolution election be held.</p>
<p>A bill failing to pass or being rejected twice by the Senate is sometimes said to be a “trigger” for a double-dissolution election.</p>
<p>After a double-dissolution election, if the same bill is again rejected by the Senate, the government can ask the governor-general to convene a joint sitting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Because the government will usually have a majority in the lower house – and there are twice as many lower house MPs as there are senators – a joint sitting is more likely to pass the legislation.</p>
<p>While the Constitution provides a procedure for resolving these deadlocks, there is no requirement for the government to put the proposed trigger legislation before the new parliament.</p>
<p>There is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalition-could-clean-up-in-senate-if-vote-reform-deal-is-finalised-20160216-gmvpqz.html">some suggestion</a> that if the government proceeds to a double-dissolution election, the new Senate electoral system might return the government a Senate majority. If that were the case, a joint sitting of both houses would be unnecessary – the government could expect that its legislation would pass both houses.</p>
<p>However, there is a further complication in a double-dissolution election. Double the number of Senate seats up for grabs also means the <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/counting/senate_count.htm">“quota”</a> of votes required for a Senate seat <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-ultimatum-july-2-double-dissolution-unless-reconvened-senate-passes-industrial-relations-bills-56586">is reduced</a>. This makes it easier for minor players to win a seat.</p>
<h2>Why the rush?</h2>
<p>The government already has two bills that have twice been rejected by the Senate and would provide <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Statistics/Senate_StatsNet/legislation/triggers44">triggers</a> for a double-dissolution election: the <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr5138%22">abolition of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation</a>, and the Registered Organisations bill.</p>
<p>The Registered Organisations bill is set to be put before the Senate for a third time. However, on this occasion, the Senate has forewarning that if it blocks the bill again, the government will call a double dissolution.</p>
<p>If the Senate was to pass the ABCC bills and the Registered Organisations bill, the government could technically still trigger a double-dissolution election using the Clean Energy Finance Corporation bill.</p>
<p>The timeline for a double dissolution is rather tight. This is because Section 57 requires a double-dissolution election cannot take place in the final six months prior to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the date of expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This means that, as the House of Representatives first sat after the last election on November 12, 2013, the house’s three-year term expires on November 11, 2016. The last day on which a double-dissolution election could be called is May 11, 2016.</p>
<p>The budget has thus been moved forward to May 3 to allow the parliament sufficient time to pass it before an election is called and parliament is dissolved.</p>
<h2>Why is the Senate coming back in April?</h2>
<p>Because of this tight timeline, Turnbull’s first issue was to get senators back to Canberra to consider the proposed legislation. The current session of parliament was not scheduled to sit again until the budget on May 10. </p>
<p>Last week, the Senate <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/voting-reform-clears-way-for-double-dissolution-election/news-story/10cbbe49b8fb4990eff9404700f8d587">passed a resolution</a> that it would not sit again before May 10 without the agreement of a majority of senators. This would have left the Senate with no time to debate and vote on the ABCC bills and the Registered Organisations bill as well as passing the budget.</p>
<p>However, the government has managed to sidestep this problem by <a href="https://www.gg.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/gg/2016/Documents%20relating%20to%20proroguation%20of%20the%20Parliament%2021%20March%202016.pdf">asking the governor-general</a> to terminate (or “prorogue”) the current session of parliament and recall the parliament for a new session to sit from April 18, 2016.</p>
<p>By terminating the current session, the government avoids any problems associated with trying to reschedule the current session. While proroguing parliament terminates any business before the parliament, the Senate’s <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/aso/so136">standing orders</a> allow that these matters of business can be reintroduced and the bills before the Senate can be restored.</p>
<p>After many weeks of speculation, the government has laid down the challenge for the Senate and smoothed the path for a double-dissolution election.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56134/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Webster does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After many weeks of speculation, the government has laid down the challenge for the Senate and smoothed the path for a double-dissolution election.Adam Webster, Lecturer, Adelaide Law School, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/566192016-03-21T08:55:58Z2016-03-21T08:55:58ZTurnbull’s not being tricky – he’s just brandishing a six shooter<p>Malcolm Turnbull’s ultimatum to the Senate – pass the government’s industrial relations bills or face a double dissolution – is a confrontationist but canny strategy.</p>
<p>After the vibe took hold that Turnbull looked weak, this is being seen as using his authority decisively.</p>
<p>It can correctly be said he is putting a gun to the heads of the crossbench – but it can’t be claimed he is being tricky or devious. He is spelling out very directly what the senators must do to avoid a double dissolution.</p>
<p>If the crossbenchers won’t play ball, the government spills the whole Senate at a July 2 election that, on present polling, it would win. Industrial relations would be at the centre of the campaign, which would be to the disadvantage of Bill Shorten.</p>
<p>That election would be expected to get rid of most of the present pesky crossbenchers. The industrial legislation would pass through a subsequent joint sitting.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if sufficient crossbenchers decide to back the bills, Turnbull obtains the measures, and can claim a significant victory over a previously recalcitrant Senate.</p>
<p>He forgoes the double dissolution. But that would not be a disaster. True, he would be left with most of his difficult current crossbenchers – only John Madigan faces the voters at a normal Senate election – but he’d also dodge a risk.</p>
<p>The new Senate voting system passed last week certainly works against “micro” players, and would cut a swathe through those there in a double dissolution. But, given the small quota, the new Senate could still see a difficult crossbench. For example, Tasmanian Jacqui Lambie, regarded by the government as particularly trying to deal with, would likely get back.</p>
<p>By having parliament recalled for three weeks so the Senate can debate the bills to resurrect the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) and to tighten trade union governance, Turnbull has overcome one of two serious timing problems he had for a double dissolution.</p>
<p>He wants the ABCC legislation as part of any double-dissolution trigger, but there was not going to be time for it to be properly dealt with. So the argument that it had “failed to pass” and thus was eligible to be a trigger would have been, at the least, questionable.</p>
<p>There can be no disputing the Senate will now have plenty of opportunity to debate the legislation. Even if a final vote was avoided, the government would have a solid failure to pass case. </p>
<p>By bringing the budget forward a week, Turnbull is clearing away another scheduling obstacle. A May 10 budget followed by calling an election on May 11 presented a bad squeeze. It gave hardly any time to get supply – required for the election period – through two houses and no opportunity for Shorten’s budget reply.</p>
<p>Labor would not refuse supply but a Senate filibuster, if the opposition wanted to play hardball, could have been dangerous. Denying Shorten his budget reply would have been indecorous.</p>
<p>Now there will be ample time to get right both the necessities and the niceties if there is to be a double dissolution.</p>
<p>None of this means the coming weeks, especially the parliamentary weeks, won’t be chaotic, full of anger, confected and genuine, from the furious crossbenchers who are now under maximum pressure, and with Labor trying tactical manoeuvres.</p>
<p>Some of the crossbenchers face the choice between survival for four years if they surrender on the legislation or adopting a defiant stand and facing nasty consequences.</p>
<p>For Madigan, whether it is a double-dissolution or a half-Senate election, the difference is likely to be between leaving the Senate mid-this year or mid-next year, when his full term runs out. He is not expected to have a chance of re-election.</p>
<p>Independent Nick Xenophon would be advantaged by a double dissolution. He could end up this year with about three Senate seats and potentially in a very powerful position.</p>
<p>The government needs six out of the eight non-Green crossbenchers for its bills. They start from different positions on the ABCC legislation – stretching from firmly in favour (Family First’s Bob Day) to firmly against (John Madigan, Glenn Lazarus) with others ranged between. A number of them are talking tough now; time will tell if pragmatism kicks in.</p>
<p>One consideration for some might be the realisation they could kill the bills, kill their own political careers and then see the legislation operating anyway after a joint sitting. Looked at that way, is it really worth their hanging out?</p>
<p>With the political heat dramatically turned up, the next few weeks will be challenging for Turnbull to manage.</p>
<p>But they will also be difficult for Shorten, as he comes under more pressure to justify why the unions – some of which have emerged very badly from the royal commission – should not be subject to these tougher provisions.</p>
<p>There has been some speculation that the Senate, while having to return because the governor-general has recalled the whole parliament, once back could decide not to consider the industrial bills.</p>
<p>If it did, that would discredit the Senate further. It would also reinforce the argument that the Senate had “failed to pass” the ABCC legislation.</p>
<p>Excessive union power might be an issue to Turnbull’s advantage but it wouldn’t be the only issue if there is a double-dissolution election. Turnbull still has a serious need to forge a credible, affordable, saleable tax package.</p>
<p>According to Monday’s Newspoll, the public is willing to cut him some slack on tax, despite the shambles we’ve recently seen from the government. The poll found 45% thought Turnbull the more capable of handling tax reform, compared with 25% who nominated Shorten as the more capable.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, an election campaign in which Turnbull could put as much weight as possible on industrial relations would obviously be attractive for him.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/ve99p-5d9281?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/ve99p-5d9281?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56619/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Malcolm Turnbull’s ultimatum to the Senate – pass the government’s industrial relations bills or face a double dissolution – is a confrontationist but canny strategy.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/564262016-03-17T19:21:22Z2016-03-17T19:21:22ZGrattan on Friday: Turnbull’s double-dissolution hand could be strengthened by final pitch to crossbench<p>What might be Malcolm Turnbull’s worst nightmare, apart from losing the election? Scraping back as a minority government, with Tony Windsor in balance of power.</p>
<p>Just joking.</p>
<p>One can pretty confidently predict Turnbull won’t become a repeat of Julia Gillard. Depending on which poll you prefer, he’s at worst 50-50 (Newspoll, with Labor on a low 35% primary vote – a likely narrow Coalition win), or 53-47% (Fairfax-Ipsos, a good win). The Conversation’s polling expert Adrian Beaumont says Labor probably needs at least 51% of the two-party vote for victory.</p>
<p>On both the polls and bipartisan opinions, the election outcome is currently not seen as being in much doubt. The voters, who for years flagged they wanted Turnbull as prime minister, are not likely to be over him any time soon. Despite a decline in his personal ratings, he has a big reservoir of popularity, although Tony Mitchelmore, from Visibility, which does qualitative research, reports from his focus group work that “the narrative on the prime minister has changed. A lot of swinging voters are saying he doesn’t seem to be doing anything.”</p>
<p>What this election will really be about for Turnbull is the size of his post-election majority. If Turnbull sweeps back to power, it could be an interesting ride. But Labor is hopeful that it can significantly cut into his numbers.</p>
<p>That would put him in serious difficulties, given the conservatives on his backbench. We’ve seen over recent months what they can do. Now they are running a ferocious campaign against the Safe Schools program, with a petition of more than 40 Coalition signatures calling for a parliamentary inquiry. Imagine what they’d try on a re-elected but weakened prime minister.</p>
<p>At this week’s end of the autumn session, Turnbull will have one big legislative achievement – a new Senate voting system, thanks to a deal of mutual convenience with the Greens.</p>
<p>The way is cleared for a July 2 double dissolution, if Turnbull wants to bite the bullet. This has become the general expectation.</p>
<p>Significant hurdles remain but they are not impossible, including bringing the budget forward and getting supply through in time.</p>
<p>The reason for a double dissolution would be to clean out pesky Senate crossbenchers. But just what a new Senate crossbench would look like could actually be a bit of a lottery, according to modelling provided by the Parliamentary Library to a Labor MP this week. </p>
<p>The modelling calculated post-double-dissoution numbers under the new system if people voted as they did in 2013. It found that compared with the present eight non-Green crossbenchers, there could be as many as 11. While for various reasons such modelling has to be taken with a very large grain of salt, the pertinent point is that the outcome of the voting change can’t be precisely predicted, especially in a double dissolution.</p>
<p>While trying to thin out the crossbench would be the real reason for a double dissolution, the main justification that has been put is the Senate’s refusal to pass the government’s industrial relations legislation – bills to reconstitute the Australian Building and Construction Commission and to toughen union governance. A week ago Turnbull suggested if this legislation was passed he would back off.</p>
<p>This may be just a convenient line – Turnbull may be set on a double dissolution regardless. But his political case would be strengthened if he made a serious final effort to herd the crossbench on these issues.</p>
<p>In the next few weeks, they should be invited to meet government negotiators to explore whether agreement could be reached. If nothing came of the attempt, Turnbull would have strongly reinforced his double dissolution argument.</p>
<p>If they caved he would indeed have to retreat. He may not want to take the risk.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, as it moves towards the election, the government’s tax package – to be at the heart of its pitch – shrank further this week, as Treasurer Scott Morrison threw cold water on the prospect of personal income tax cuts, pointing rather to company tax relief.</p>
<p>In just a few months the plan has gone from the prospect of a once-in-a-generation reform with a major tax mix switch – higher GST, income tax cuts to address bracket creep, plus changes to superannuation and negative gearing – to a modest package focused on superannuation, a company tax cut, and higher cigarette tax.</p>
<p>The scaled down package will be cast as promoting “growth and jobs”, but how much voter appeal will it have?</p>
<p>The progressive retreat on personal income tax cuts – though said not to be absolutely off the table – came because the GST trade-off would not have spurred growth, and there is no other revenue available to adequately pay for them.</p>
<p>At the election there will not be the once anticipated clear contrast between a government pledging significant personal tax cuts and an opposition promising spending on education and health programs financed by some tax hikes.</p>
<p>But on another front the present plan sharpens the difference with Labor. Having apparently put aside changes to negative gearing, the government is leaving itself freer to attack the ALP’s radical initiative in that area.</p>
<p>This week’s Fairfax-Ipsos poll showed 42% against limiting concessions for negative gearing; 34% in favour and about one in four people undecided. These figures underline Labor’s risk of this ending up a very difficult issue for it under a sustained government fear campaign.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/ve99p-5d9281?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/ve99p-5d9281?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56426/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What might be Malcolm Turnbull’s worst nightmare, apart from losing the election? Scraping back as a minority government, with Tony Windsor in balance of power.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/563532016-03-16T01:28:23Z2016-03-16T01:28:23ZPolitics podcast: Ricky Muir’s fight to stay in the Senate<p>The Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party’s Ricky Muir this week made an unsuccessful last roll of the dice to try to delay the government’s Senate voting reform legislation. The bill will prevent almost all “micro” players being elected to the Senate, and facilitate the government driving out most of the current bunch if it holds a double-dissolution election. </p>
<p>But Muir tells Michelle Grattan the reforms have not been properly scrutinised and the process to approve them has been a sham. While he acknowledged the need for some reform, he believes the government is scapegoating him for being elected on 0.51% of the primary vote.</p>
<p>“Do I appreciate that some kind of changes could happen? Absolutely. But it needs to be a long, thought-out, thorough process with proper public consultation,” he says. </p>
<p>Muir, who was reticent about speaking out in public in his first months in the Senate, is now fiesty. He is taking a high-profile and ready to fight for his political reputation at the election.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56353/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ricky Muir from the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party this week made an unsuccessful last roll of the dice to try to delay the government's Senate voting reform legislation.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/559742016-03-08T12:40:22Z2016-03-08T12:40:22ZThe way things are heading, it will be a let down if we aren’t voting on July 2<p>The momentum for a July 2 double dissolution has accelerated with Malcolm Turnbull opening the way to bring the May 10 budget forward by a week.</p>
<p>“The budget will be in May,” he said on Tuesday, as he prepared to chair the cabinet expenditure review committee, which had tax policy before it.</p>
<p>An earlier budget day is the ultimate in “agility”, even if it does look a little extraordinary for a government that often seems to be running late. To get it done, decisions about the budget’s content would need to be sped up.</p>
<p>But the tight timetable for a July 2 election leaves no other way. The government has to get supply through before the parliament is dissolved. That can’t be done next week – the last sitting week before budget day on the present timetable. And pushing the supply legislation through the two houses between a May 10 budget and a May 11 final day for calling the double dissolution is a bridge too far.</p>
<p>Inserting an extra sitting week, with the budget on May 3, would leave more time to deal with supply, as well as avoiding the unseemly denial of the opposition leader’s right to a parliamentary budget reply.</p>
<p>The Senate is its own master, however. The government doesn’t have the numbers there and it is not clear whether it would agree to return early. If it didn’t, the supply legislation, by then passed by the House of Representatives, would have to be put through the upper house on May 10.</p>
<p>But would the Senate choose to be missing in the new budget week? Rather foolish, one would think.</p>
<p>The government would also want to bowl up to the Senate the Australian Building and Construction Commission legislation, presently before an inquiry. If the Senate delayed the bills, this would strengthen the government’s argument that the legislation had “failed to pass”, even if it hadn’t been rejected outright. </p>
<p>The government would add it as a double-dissolution trigger – though whether it qualified would be up to the governor-general – and so elevate industrial relations and Senate obstruction as it launched its election pitch.</p>
<p>If Turnbull pursues a July 2 election, ABC election analyst Antony Green predicts he would likely follow the Bob Hawke 1987 precedent. Hawke went to the governor-general and obtained approval for the double dissolution conditional on supply being passed by the parliament.</p>
<p>Once it gets its Senate voting changes through next week, the argument for a double dissolution becomes politically compelling for the Coalition. If it possesses the means to remove all or almost all of the crossbench “micro” players from the Senate – not including independent Nick Xenophon – why not do so at once? Otherwise, if the government was re-elected at a normal election, the crossbenchers would continue to frustrate it for the next four years, their mood soured by the voting reforms.</p>
<p>There is another reason for an early dash for the polls. The more trouble Turnbull gets from the conservative Liberals, and from a vengeful Tony Abbott in particular, the more he needs an election win to stamp his authority firmly on his party. One only has to know Turnbull’s nature to understand his deep frustration at the internal dissent.</p>
<p>In Tuesday’s Australian Peta Credlin <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/niki-savvas-road-to-ruin-politics-is-now-unsourced-gossip/news-story/5a01f5d919eea7db86989f7e14989175?sv=f6be874a1658724244d019b16007382f">hit back</a> at journalist Niki Savva and her book on the demise of the Abbott government and the destructive relationship between Abbott and his chief-of-staff.</p>
<p>Credlin wrote that much of the post-leadership critique was “politically motivated” and driven by warring Liberal Party camps. “Having watched at close quarters the extraordinary way that Labor ripped itself apart during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, I am dismayed that my own side is heading down the same path,” she said.</p>
<p>The war is coming from the right. But it has become clear it is not going to stop any time soon.</p>
<p>The strength of a post-election mandate, however, would depend on how well Turnbull won. On Tuesday both Newspoll and Essential had Coalition and Labor 50-50 on the two-party vote, with Turnbull’s personal rating reduced, but still way ahead of Bill Shorten’s. While a Coalition victory is expected by both sides, government marginal seat holders will be feeling a good deal less comfortable than a few months ago.</p>
<p>The road to a July 2 election would not be easy for Turnbull. In an agonisingly long campaign, it is unpredictable whether he or Shorten would better stand up to such a gruelling test of political stamina.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/es6yv-5d2c9d?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/es6yv-5d2c9d?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55974/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The momentum for a July 2 double dissolution has accelerated with Malcolm Turnbull opening the way to bring the May 10 budget forward by a week. “The budget will be in May,” he said on Tuesday, as he prepared…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/557602016-03-04T05:25:48Z2016-03-04T05:25:48ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on Tony Abbott’s policy interventions<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_UWz7cLR3KA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>It has been a week of political contests, both within party lines and across them. University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Stephen Parker and Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan take a look at the bitter rivalry between Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott, and the contrasting performances of Treasurer Scott Morrison and his shadow counterpart Chris Bowen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55760/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It has been a week of political contests, both within party lines and across them. Stephen Parker and Michelle Grattan take a look at the bitter rivalry between Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraStephen Parker, Vice-Chancellor, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/557192016-03-03T19:04:45Z2016-03-03T19:04:45ZGrattan on Friday: Bowen is outshining Morrison in the tax hurdle race<p>Politics has its own purgatory, as Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott might have reflected when they sat on the same table at the Howard government’s 20th anniversary dinner on Wednesday. After a day when their animosity had been on shocking display, here they were together, unable to escape.</p>
<p>Among the speakers during this nostalgia night was Peter Costello, whose prime ministerial hopes John Howard held at bay.</p>
<p>Which prompts the question: if you’re prime minister, is it easier to deal with the ambitions of someone who covets your job, or the revenge of one whose job you’ve grabbed? Arguably there are more restraints on an aspirant than on a bitter “ex” with little regard for consequences.</p>
<p>As Abbott has become increasingly overt in his sorties against Turnbull, he is discrediting himself. The defence department has trashed his much-publicised claim this week – on the back of leaked classified material – that the Turnbull government delayed the submarines project.</p>
<p>So far Abbott has been undeterred by fear of self-harm. His critics believe (or hope) the public will say enough is enough. Abbott’s ability to wound would be less, however, if the Turnbull government had its act together.</p>
<p>And that takes us to the dreadfully mismanaged tax policy process.</p>
<p>Under party and other pressures, Turnbull is said to have backed away from action on negative gearing, although it remains on the options list. Superannuation is a maze. It is still unclear when and in what form the tax package will be released. Treasury is now working frantically. Turnbull has become impatient. The expenditure review committee is due to consider tax on Tuesday.</p>
<p>Treasurer Scott Morrison appears spooked, assailed by backbench nerves and media criticism, and fighting to prevent further backsliding from a package he wants substantial enough to finance at least modest and probably targeted tax relief. He and Turnbull often seem in different places, and not just on tax options. Morrison for months noisily ruled out giving the states extra funding to help with health and education. It is now expected Turnbull will provide some pre-election sweetener.</p>
<p>With his credibility already low, Morrison did himself no good when he grabbed a report on abolishing negative gearing on established dwellings done by BIS Shrapnel, which he described as “a very damning … indictment on Labor’s policy”. The report predicted a rise in rents, a fall in new home building, and GDP shrinking by A$19 billion a year on average.</p>
<p>The work had different assumptions from the ALP policy, pre-dated Labor’s plan, and was prepared for a client BIS Shrapnel refused to identify. It contained an embarrassing error in one of its figures.</p>
<p>The report’s methodology and estimates have also come under fire, in a <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/news/a-low-cost-way-to-derail-the-housing-debate/">critique from Grattan Institute’s</a> chief executive John Daley and Danielle Wood, a fellow at the institute. And they condemn the fact a report “that would flunk any first-year economics course has been allowed a serious voice in the public debate”.</p>
<p>The concern “goes beyond the claims of this nonsense-on-stilts report”, they argue, to the prominence received by “independent” reports produced to advance vested interests’ causes. “No matter how outlandish their claims or how obscure their provenance, the media report them and politicians quote them. The public, confused or frightened by the numbers, forms the view that policy change is simply too risky.”</p>
<p>The message should at least be absorbed by the media, especially as the election approaches. It is not much good appealing to the politicians to exercise restraint. Scaring people is precisely what the government seeks to do in the negative gearing debate. But the rapid discrediting of the Shrapnel report meant Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen were able to push back with some authority.</p>
<p>As the contest about tax intensifies, the contrast is notable between the performances of Morrison and Bowen.</p>
<p>Morrison has been at odds with his leader; he has been forced back from bold ambitions to modest measures yet to be landed. Bowen has spearheaded robust policies that put the opposition on the front foot in the debate when the government still has nothing on offer. In the House of Representatives he and others have cornered the government with tight questions. Outside parliament, Bowen is quick to have press releases out to counter claims about Labor’s policy.</p>
<p>But the debate will get tougher; Shorten can be thankful his shadow treasurer is good for a lot of heavy lifting. If Turnbull’s treasurer was performing as competently as his “shadow”, Turnbull might be better placed on the tax front.</p>
<p>Meanwhile there has been an interesting development for the double-dissolution watchers. The list of bills the government wants passed in the last week of this session, commencing March 15, does not include the much-talked-about Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) legislation.</p>
<p>The Greens have agreed to extended hours that week to get Senate voting changes through, but not to deal with the ABCC. In public comments the government has repeatedly linked the ABCC legislation to the threat of a double-dissolution election. Its exclusion from the priority list would weaken the case if the government wanted to include it as a “trigger” on the grounds it had “failed to pass”.</p>
<p>But if Turnbull decides to use the brand new voting system to quickly clean out the Senate crossbenchers, he has “trigger” legislation regardless of the ABCC.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/es6yv-5d2c9d?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/es6yv-5d2c9d?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55719/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Politics has its own purgatory, as Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott might have reflected when they sat on the same table at the Howard government’s 20th anniversary dinner on Wednesday.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/553962016-02-25T19:05:14Z2016-02-25T19:05:14ZGrattan on Friday: Malcolm Turnbull should announce the government’s tax policy pronto<p>The Turnbull government desperately needs a circuit breaker. It is in an appalling mess over tax policy and it can’t afford to wait until the budget to have it sorted out.</p>
<p>This week had shades of Malcolm Turnbull’s opposition days when things started to unravel. Only shades of, mind you, but Turnbull should move decisively to bring the situation under control.</p>
<p>The week was marked by mistakes of overreach, against the background of the absence of a government tax policy.</p>
<p>How could Turnbull say that “increasing capital gains tax is no part of our thinking whatsoever”, when he knew that wasn’t right and had to have his office immediately correct it?</p>
<p>How could Assistant Treasurer Kelly O'Dwyer claim Labor’s policy would “increase the cost of housing for all Australians”, when she had heard Turnbull shouting that it would drive the value of people’s homes down?</p>
<p>It’s either hubris – an attitude of “I can say anything and get away with it” – or gross carelessness.</p>
<p>The sin is then made worse by a failure to just admit you’ve stuffed up – which would give the best chance of limiting the damage. Attempting to explain the mistake away, like a lawyer defending the indefensible, only drags out the agony.</p>
<p>When these snafus happen, parliament’s Question Time – so often written off as useless or worse – comes into its own. The opposition used parliament effectively this week to pursue the tax blunders. It has exploited Question Time skilfully on other fronts – late last year Mal Brough was roasted to a crisp; this month the same happened to Stuart Robert. Both are now on the backbench.</p>
<p>Turnbull has amped up his attack on Labor’s negative gearing policy to such a degree that it is cited as evidence he is turning into Tony Abbott. It can rather be seen as the usual scare tactics we get from leaders when they have or require a target. Abbott on the carbon and mining taxes to be sure. But also Bill Shorten on a higher GST, an onslaught that helped to pre-emptively kill that option.</p>
<p>Turnbull’s attack, however, is weakened by the absence of any Coalition policy on negative gearing. He can make all sorts of claims about Labor’s proposal but if he doesn’t want to rule out his own rejig, critics can just assert he has nasties in the cupboard.</p>
<p>That comes to the question of what Turnbull should do now. Two options are obvious: an early announcement on superannuation, with other tax policies left to the budget, or a broad pre-budget tax statement.</p>
<p>There are strong arguments to bring forward the tax package, releasing it as soon as it can be finished.</p>
<p>Treasurer Scott Morrison has flagged the prospect of unveiling the superannuation revamp ahead of the budget.</p>
<p>But other changes – that may include a cap on negative gearing concessions and an overhaul of work-related deductions – would be best put out ASAP as well.</p>
<p>One course would be to release a tax policy that includes all the changes and nominates the amount available for personal (and possibly company) tax relief, with the tax tables left to the budget. That would give the government some, albeit modest, good news for that night.</p>
<p>What would be the advantage to the government of the early tax statement?</p>
<p>First, it would fill the present vacuum, which is agitating backbenchers – who might start exercising their muscle again, as they did over the GST – and damaging the government.</p>
<p>Second, it would enable the Coalition to attack more credibly the opposition’s policy with appropriate contrasts – although it would also throw up targets for Labor to exploit.</p>
<p>Third, it would de-clutter the budget. Admittedly the tax package is ever-shrinking but still complex enough to justify standing alone.</p>
<p>Fourth, it would facilitate explaining the changes to the public and having them understood.</p>
<p>Fifth – though more doubtfully – it might help rehabilitate Morrison, because he would have something solid to talk about. At the moment Morrison has become such a whipping boy that he is a political liability. In the best scheme of things for the Coalition, Morrison would be spearheading the assault on Labor’s tax policy while Turnbull preserved a more positive image.</p>
<p>Finally, if the government is seriously considering a July double dissolution launched the day after the budget, having the tax package out beforehand would be safer and cleaner, so Turnbull could better manage the messages of the campaign’s early days.</p>
<p>While some argue the government shouldn’t be “spooked” into an early release, the counter case is that it would be common sense, given where things are at, and the alternative is not worth the pain.</p>
<p>One complication put forward is that the work hasn’t been completed. Last week Morrison said the government only started looking at some options when the leadership changed, because Abbott had them off the table. OK the dog ate the homework, but the tax policy process has been allowed to become chaotic and sloppy.</p>
<p>It’s time for the government to finish its assignment and hand it in to those who will judge it – the public.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/xhsqr-5cf08b?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/xhsqr-5cf08b?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55396/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Turnbull government desperately needs a circuit breaker. It is in an appalling mess over tax policy and it can’t afford to wait until the budget to have it sorted out.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/551082016-02-21T09:04:05Z2016-02-21T09:04:05ZHow will Turnbull get the money needed to govern if he calls a double dissolution?<p>Malcolm Turnbull is fond of saying that we need to be less risk averse. Now the question is whether he will follow his own advice.</p>
<p>He is waving around the possibility of a double dissolution in early July, a course that would carry both dangers and potential high gains for him, although how they’d balance out is unpredictable.</p>
<p>Turnbull has repeatedly said that he expects the election at the normal time – between August and October – which would mean only half the Senate would face the people with the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>But he has also declared a double dissolution – taking out the whole Senate – a “live option”, and recently the odds on this have shortened, especially as the government looks to a deal with the Greens to change the Senate voting system to squeeze out “micro” players in future elections.</p>
<p>On Sunday night the government was expressing confidence that agreement would be secured early this week, removing a major obstacle to a double dissolution.</p>
<p>Without an agreement, a double dissolution would be counterproductive – another lot of small players would likely appear, perhaps more than now.</p>
<p>On Sunday, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce said if the Senate became “inoperable, then … we have a right, a constitutional right, to go to a double dissolution and we’ll always keep that option up our sleeve.”</p>
<p>The government denies it is just raising a double dissolution as a threat, but you might wonder when you look at that pathway. It’s rather like investing a million or two in an attractive but not entirely secure start-up venture.</p>
<p>The problems hinge on dates, and they are tight.</p>
<p>Given the government is committed to bringing down a budget on May 10, the double dissolution would have to be called on May 11, for July 2, 9 or 16 (the last possible date). The July date is needed to avoid cutting the next parliamentary term very short.</p>
<p>This means Turnbull would be taking a big gamble on his and Scott Morrison’s budget. This will contain income tax cuts, but with the GST off the table these can no longer be mega. Some other taxes will have to be adjusted to pay for them.</p>
<p>Presumably the government would avoid the nasties being a surprise via early leaks or announcements.</p>
<p>Still, launching an election before the reaction to the budget plays out – and the opposition leader has even had a chance to give his parliamentary reply – would take a certain chutzpah.</p>
<p>And there are some practical issues. Once the end of the financial year ticks over the government needs a fresh appropriation of money. It’s not that all the cash instantly runs out but it would be impossible to get by because it would be weeks before the new parliament convened.</p>
<p>Passing some appropriation would need Senate co-operation. ABC election analyst Antony Green says: “If they need to pass supply and Labor says ‘not on your nelly, Bill Shorten hasn’t given his speech’, it’s all over”.</p>
<p>If Turnbull wanted to call an election on May 11, he might have to seek supply funds earlier, during the current parliamentary session which ends in mid-March.</p>
<p>That would put the Senate in an interesting dilemma – no-one wants to revisit the blocking of supply. But the government would also be flagging its double-dissolution plan, effectively starting the campaign many weeks before parliament was dissolved.</p>
<p>Green also says that given the brief window in May for calling the double dissolution, Turnbull would need to avoid surprising Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove on the question of “trigger” bills.</p>
<p>The government has undisputed “triggers” for a double dissolution – bills rejected twice with the required period in between. But it would also want to make the legislation, already rejected once, for the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) a trigger, so it could raise a storm about industrial thuggery. However the Senate has voted to send this legislation to a committee that doesn’t report until March 15, just before the parliament rises on March 17 for its pre-budget break.</p>
<p>If the Senate doesn’t deal with that legislation – which on present indications it would reject – in those couple of days, there would be no opportunity for it to do so before the double dissolution was called.</p>
<p>The government would argue this was a “failure to pass” under the constitution and so the ABCC was a trigger bill. But Turnbull would have to be confident this argument was acceptable to Cosgrove – it would be embarrassing to be sent back by the Governor-General to redo the paperwork at the last moment.</p>
<p>A double dissolution after a deal on Senate reform would clear away annoying micro players, and likely though not automatically produce an easier Senate for a re-elected Turnbull government. It would allow that government to pass “trigger” bills at a subsequent joint sitting.</p>
<p>But the complications, including and especially the one about getting the money, would make jumping out of the double-dissolution starting blocks a messy process. The campaign itself would be very long – the longest since 1984, one that became very hard going for then-prime minister Bob Hawke. </p>
<p>Who would benefit from an extended campaign can’t be foreseen but it would certainly be more difficult for either side to control than a conventional one.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/wqhex-5ccc1a?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/wqhex-5ccc1a?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55108/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Malcolm Turnbull is fond of saying that we need to be less risk averse. Now the question is whether he will follow his own advice. He is waving around the possibility of a double dissolution in early July…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/540712016-02-02T11:40:00Z2016-02-02T11:40:00ZTurnbull forced to delay reshuffle until March as Warren Truss leaves Nationals confused<p>When Malcolm Turnbull addressed his partyroom on Tuesday, he had a double message.</p>
<p>The election could reasonably be expected at the normal time, between August and October, Turnbull said. That’s his current line. But, he added, that was not set in stone: a double dissolution was a “live option” that would have to be weighed up.</p>
<p>Translated, Turnbull is saying: I plan to go full term but I want to draw attention to this gun in my pocket, to encourage the Senate to pass some big measures, notably those dealing with union bad behaviour.</p>
<p>Turnbull’s approach is understandable. But he has to be careful. He needs to keep up business confidence and doubt around election timing can harm that. The nuances get lost in the mad media cycle. On the other hand, business wants to curb the unions and perhaps in that cause will be tolerant of a bit more uncertainty.</p>
<p>Labor will not be influenced by the threat of a double dissolution, which would have to be held by mid-July. It is already operating as though the election is next month.</p>
<p>A double dissolution carries the risk of a more fragmented Senate crossbench than now because the quota is smaller, which is a disincentive to calling one.</p>
<p>But even with a smaller quota some, though not all, of the existing “micro” players would almost certainly be swept out. Whether any crossbenchers will take account of the threat to their own futures when considering their attitudes to bills is another matter.</p>
<p>Despite having a softer image than Tony Abbott, Turnbull will exploit to the full the damning report from the trade union royal commission that his predecessor set up. Turnbull gets the benefit of Abbott’s very political act.</p>
<p>The government on Tuesday reintroduced legislation to resurrect the watchdog Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC). On current crossbench attitudes, its prospects – after being rejected once – are not good. The government will soon bring back tough legislation on registered organisations.</p>
<p>Turnbull told his MPs that the commission report was “a watershed moment”, showing a culture of corruption and malfeasance across sections of the union movement.</p>
<p>Bill Shorten still looks weak on the issue of industrial wrongdoing and Labor is conflicted; the bottom line is the unions have too much influence in and over the ALP and Shorten has shown little inclination to do anything about it.</p>
<p>At a tactical level, the government has been cack-handed in some of its play around the commission report. It said it would show the secret part of the report to crossbenchers whose support it is seeking for the ABCC legislation, but that access wouldn’t be accorded to Labor and the Greens. </p>
<p>It then changed its mind, offering them access but on such absurdly restrictive conditions that they could respectably decline. The offer was for just one person in each of Labor and the Greens to view the material. No notes could be taken and “the details and nature of the material … may not be disclosed to third parties”.</p>
<p>Whether Turnbull ends up able to wield any leverage over the Senate on his industrial relations legislation remains to be seen. He certainly doesn’t appear to have the slightest influence when it comes to clearing the way for his ministerial reshuffle, which is waiting on Nationals leader Warren Truss clarifying his future.</p>
<p>Unfortunately Truss, now almost universally expected to quit the leadership, muddied the waters when he spoke to the Nationals partyroom on Monday.</p>
<p>He flagged an announcement at the end of this sitting. Colleagues took that to mean when the parliamentary fortnight wraps up next week. But he apparently meant the end of this session, which finishes mid-March. Truss is said to want to be present through much of the budget’s expenditure review process. If he sticks to this timetable it is very awkward for Turnbull. It delays the reshuffle, and has Turnbull dancing to Truss’ (slow) tune.</p>
<p>The reshuffle – in the wake of Jamie Briggs quitting the ministry because of inappropriate behaviour and Mal Brough standing aside – is expected to be limited but not minimal. Turnbull knows he needs to get on with it as soon as possible, but cannot. Having one set of changes before Truss’ announcement and another one after would be a farce. Never a patient man, Turnbull’s degree of frustration can only be guessed at.</p>
<p>Meanwhile Turnbull’s problems on the tax front are increasing, as nervousness surfaces in the Nationals about the possibility of a higher GST. The Nationals hold some of the poorest electorates and say they would have a lot of trouble explaining a tax change which included a great deal of “churn” in compensation for limited benefit.</p>
<p>No wonder Turnbull was again cautious in Tuesday’s partyroom when talking about tax. On the GST issue, he is staying agile.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/47t6b-5c47ff?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/47t6b-5c47ff?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54071/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
When Malcolm Turnbull addressed his party room on Tuesday, he had a double message.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/500912015-11-02T09:35:44Z2015-11-02T09:35:44ZThe government is considering whether to scrap or delay its tax green paper<p>Call me naïve, but I can’t see why Malcolm Turnbull would rush to an election early next year after flagging he will go full term.</p>
<p>Speculation in the last few days has suggested Turnbull would be or should be tempted to seek a mandate in the first months of 2016.</p>
<p>But Turnbull himself on Monday said: “I would say around September, October next year is when you should expect the next election to be”.</p>
<p>It is true that prime ministers can’t necessarily be believed when they talk about election timing. But Turnbull has cause to stick by what he says, even if it does contain a let out (the word “expect”).</p>
<p>As Cabinet Secretary Arthur Sinodinos said on Sunday – when talking about the government trying to undertake major tax reform – it is vital that the Coalition win back the trust of voters. Tony Abbott absolutely squandered trust and, while people are welcoming of Turnbull and like him, the electorate’s general cynicism runs deep.</p>
<p>Imagine the politics of Turnbull presenting an elaborate and challenging tax package, with an increase in the GST, and then calling a snap election before the budget.</p>
<p>The voters’ questions would be obvious. What are you hiding? Why did you say one thing about election timing and do another? How can we believe you on tax when we couldn’t believe you about the election?</p>
<p>One might say that the performance of Opposition Leader Bill Shorten is so bad that Turnbull’s apparent deception on election timing wouldn’t matter.</p>
<p>But campaigns can turn out oddly. In 1984 the popular Bob Hawke – he enjoyed an approval rating of 75% – went to an early election against Andrew Peacock, who was almost on the political floor. Peacock, campaigning on Labor’s pension assets test, did unexpectedly well in a result that gave the government a sharp reality check.</p>
<p>In politics, trying to be too clever can bring trouble. This year in Queensland Campbell Newman, on the nose with electors, tried to bury the state poll in the January holiday season. That just turned voters off even more.</p>
<p>If Turnbull decides to put up an ambitious tax plan, he will need time both to establish his bona fides, and to prepare and sell the policy.</p>
<p>The argument that the next budget will be very difficult, and so it would be best not to have it before the election, has flaws. Apart from anything else, it is harder to pull the wool over voters’ eyes these days, because under the Charter of Budget Honesty, updated official fiscal numbers come out within 10 days of the issue of a writ for the election.</p>
<p>Similarly if the economy were tanking, that would probably be pretty obvious.</p>
<p>An election early next year would have the substantial handicap that it would, in practical terms, have to be a double dissolution, which reduces the quota for the Senate, making it easier for minor parties and independents. This would be a problem even if the government managed to make some changes to the Senate voting system to disadvantage micro-players.</p>
<p>Turnbull needs to quash the speculation of an early election. The government is desperate for business confidence to revive and there are signs the ascension of Turnbull is helping that. But election speculation is always a downer for confidence.</p>
<p>Meanwhile the government is finding managing the tax debate is becoming a tricky operation. It is useful for it to have options, such as a 15% GST, out there being discussed. But it can be dangerous if the discussion gets too far ahead of the government’s capacity to respond.</p>
<p>Turnbull on Monday was juggling keeping options open while providing reassurance. “It’s premature to say that the government has landed on one particular change or another,” he said.</p>
<p>But “any changes to the tax system have got to be ones that ensure that there is no disadvantage to the most vulnerable Australians, to less well-off Australians. We’ve got to … be absolutely clear that any changes to the tax system or the transfer payment system are ones that are fair, that are seen to be fair across the board.”</p>
<p>On Monday Queensland Liberal senator Ian Macdonald strongly opposed an increase in the GST rate – recalling a very old promise. He said that John Howard and he himself had pledged when campaigning for the GST’s introduction, that “there would never be any increase beyond 10%, and that is a promise that I intend to fulfil”. He indicated he would be happy to see the GST – which currently doesn’t apply to fresh food, health and education – go back to the originally planned broader base.</p>
<p>Among the current uncertainties is whether the government will go ahead with its earlier plan to have a tax green paper before Christmas, followed by a white paper next year. Alternatives are to scrap the green paper and just have a white paper, or to delay the green paper until the new year.</p>
<p>The government’s tax Re:think website <a href="http://bettertax.gov.au/have-your-say/process/">says</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The government will reflect the community’s views in its options (green) paper. A white paper setting out the government’s tax policy will then be prepared and released. Upon receiving the community’s views on the options paper, we will propose our plan for a better tax system in the tax white paper prior to the next election.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But now it seems the fate of the green paper stage is up in the air. Or, like everything else, on the table.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/467dx-59c4c5?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/467dx-59c4c5?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50091/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Call me naïve, but I can’t see why Malcolm Turnbull would rush to an election early next year after flagging he will go full term.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/391152015-03-20T02:49:13Z2015-03-20T02:49:13ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the chances of a double dissolution<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TIfk9_S0G-g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Stephen Parker and Michelle Grattan discuss the week in politics including the recent chatter of a double dissolution, what would happen to crossbenchers if it did happen and three Nationals crossing the floor in the Senate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39115/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Stephen Parker and Michelle Grattan discuss the week in politics including the recent chatter of a double dissolution, what would happen to crossbenchers if it did happen and three Nationals crossing the floor in the Senate.Stephen Parker, Vice-Chancellor, University of CanberraMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.