| A referendum with the next election? |
|
|
| Written by Professor David Flint AM | ||||
| Thursday, 11 March 2010 | ||||
|
The latest possible date for a general election is Saturday, 16 April 2011, although almost everybody thinks it will be this year. But a double dissolution election cannot be granted after 11 August; the actual election would be later. I think it unlikely that the Prime Minister will go to an early election. He will hope as, Crikey’s Bernard Keane does, that Tony Abbott has peaked. That is unlikely, but advisors will warn the government that the public prefers a government to serve close to its full term, something the Prime Minister has repeatedly affirmed. The Prime Minister has said that if the states refuse to sign up to his health plan, “we will take this reform to the people at the next election – along with a referendum by or at the same election to give the Australian government all the power it needs to reform the health system”. (Paul Kelly, The Weekend Australian, 6-7 March 2010. At the time of writing this was not on the web)
A double dissolution cannot take place if the term of the House of Representatives will expire within 6 months. This means a double dissolution can only be granted on or before 11 August 2010. (section 57) The writs must be issued within 10 days of dissolution ( section 32) , and polling day follows between 33 and 58 days after that. The AEC advises that while a double dissolution must be proclaimed by the Governor-General by 11 August the actual election could occur as late as 16 October 2010 (based on maximum timetables), but with the usual minimum timetables, the latest date would be 18 September 2010. The question is how likely is the Prime Minister to want to close down the Parliament on or by 11 August and have up to two months of campaigning and perhaps losing the chance of having a referendum. On the other hand he may prefer that, particularly if he thinks he would lose the referendum. More than one Bill may provide the basis for a double dissolution. It is possible for a government to save up (or "stockpile") double dissolution bills as ‘triggers' during a term of Parliament, in order to get them all passed at the same time. Just because an election is called on the basis of a rejected bill or bills does not of course mean that will dominate the electoral campaign. If the trigger were, for example the rejection of the bill to means test the private health insurance rebate, this is hardly likely to be the dominant issue in the election. ...six double dissolutions..... In 1914 and 1983, the government lost the election that followed the dissolution and no further action was taken on the disputed bill or bills. In 1951 the government won the election with a majority in the Senate and so the deadlock was broken in that way. In 1974 and 1987 the government won the election but did not have a majority in the Senate. In 1974 the six bills that had been the basis for a double dissolution were passed by the one and only joint sitting. One was subsequently found to have been invalidly put to the joint sitting.In 1987 the Hawke government decided not to proceed with the bill which triggered the double dissolution. The double dissolution in 1975 was unusual. More than 20 double dissolution bills had been stockpiled when the Senate delayed three other money bills, including a key appropriation bill.
Only registered users can write comments. Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6 |
||||
Add new comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
