Could there be a Double Dissolution?

There seems to be some media noise about an early commonwealth election over the past few weeks,and i'm unsure what would trigger a double dissolution under section "57" of our constitution
as the first double dissolution was first played in 1913,and with some of the issues out there from changes to "N"gearing,taxing the "PPOR",and various other debates going on in several different back locked rooms,maybe it's gonna happen a lot quicker then people think,or maybe it's just noise.

 

^ ^ this.

 

The current government would need to formalise some policies pretty quickly either way.

 

It'll be like the Aussies bowling underarm against NZ in the cricket to gain political advantage from the election. That is, if they use it, it will take decades to rebuild any form of trust and get any cooperation from the opposition or minor parties (if there are any who get back in to parliament).

 

I quite liked the response this morning by Chris Uhlman (sp?) - the government has just spent some time annoying the heck out of the cross benches in the senate with the new voting legislation (to be law soon probably). Some have even said they'll vote against *every* government bill from now on. Why would the government do that unless they are going to choose the only way to cleanup the Senate which is a DD. A normal election is only half senate and leaves most of the cross bench intact - they're not up for reelection this time. So either the government is happy to have a problem senate for the next 3.5 years (assuming they want to win ) and go to a normal election, or they're going to go for a DD.
Now when you look at the decision timing of the senate voting bill, it's only been recently that it's being pushed through, even at the expense of other bills the government would clearly love to be talking about (like the building commission).
Pretty good reasons I reckon for getting your betting down on a DD...

 

Gloves on. Shorten will be at North Gosford tomorrow to make an announcement against removing bulk billed pathology and the non political ads saying how great the government is have started.

 

You know there's an election coming when these thinly veiled ads start and they seem to be everywhere. They're even more useless than normal.

 

Well - I for one think that Shorten makes himself look like an idiot every time he comes on TV having a whinge about the government ... he simply not effective whinge opposition material ... and is hopeless at policy selling

Would also like the new senate laws to come into effect - basically the person with the most votes (via the voters preferences) gets elected rather than this behind the scenes preferences thingie where someone with 400 direct votes is suddenly in a powerful position.

Apparently there are 3 bills in play that could be used to pull the double dissolution trigger, but two have been sitting around or 12+ months so would look petty to use - the third is the anti-corruption construction industry bill, that I think most Australians would support, and is due to go back before the senate any time in the next 6 weeks

 

And yet @Lizzie the current Federal Government has been focused on fast tracking the media bill as the one and only bill that Australians apparently want without knowing about it.

 

Despite all the media controversy, mutterings, bickering and policy flogging - all I can think about is "thank God we don't live in North America!"

And for those that think Hillary Clinton is the only decent one - I was rather surprised when someone pointed me in the direction of "Arkancide" ... google it (although I am very dubious about conspiracy theories) ... perhaps the snow is not quite as pure on the other side of the campaign

 

Just think the billions wasted on just becoming the parties nominee and where that money could be better spent

 

Well Shorty is pushing for Australia to become a republic so this is on the cards for Australia too.

 

But Turnbull has pushed for a republic for a long time - no difference either candidate there.

 

Not necessarily. We may follow a different republic model to the USA that didn't involve billions being spent on party nominations. Perhaps something like the 99 referendum that involved a fairly non-partisan appointment of a president.

 

@Ed Barton - our model will be along the lines of the apathetic design. What we need to get a republic is a revolution (like all good democracies) but we couldn't give a rats.....

 

I agree. If I put Shorty and Turnbull in a paper bag, gave it a shake and let the policies fall out, I would struggle to match the policy to the pollie. I don't see much difference between them at all.

My point was that MT is not currently pushing for a republic.

I would hope so. My issue is I don't have much faith in the current batch of pollies. I have no idea what model they would put in if we did become a republic.

Or happy enough with the current system. Put it this way, we have a structural deficit in the budget, an economy which needs to transition away from a heavy reliance on mining and construction and we are not a republic. Which of these are the more important issues?

The other side of it is look at Canada (not a republic) and USA (republic) and ask yourself which country you would rather be more like?

 

Now that would be a fantastic TV show, say on the ABC, during the election! You could do all the fun of "phone a friend", etc. Add in some Green policies and, every once in a while to spice things up, a Motorists or Shooters policy. This could be a goer!