Comments on: Failure to pass?

By: Hamish Coffee

Hamish Coffee — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:35:34 +0000

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/30/2757123.htm

”

The Nationals have decided on a candidate to contest the seat of Page at the next federal election.

Clunes man Kevin Hogan was unanimously endorsed when 50 local party members met in Casino over the weekend.

The 46-year-old says he could certainly have chosen a better time to make his entrance into federal politics.

“Well obviously I was almost laughing in despair at one stage last week because obviously the Liberal party has been in a complete state of implosion,” Mr Hogan said.

“I mean I think while it’s very healthy to have disagreements in a party and debate in a party, it’s always much better to do that behind closed doors than in front of all the TV cameras,” he said.

The small business operator was previously a teacher at the St Mary’s High School in Casino.

He says he has strong views on the issue which has threatened to tear the Coalition apart.

“I am no scientist but I certainly understand the need for us to act on climate change because it’s not something that we can ignore, because if the science that most people are proposing is right, then we have to act, there’s no choice,” Mr Hogan said.

“I think though there is the separate issue of the ETS and I certainly am in favour of us waiting until Copenhagen,” he said.

”

Interesting quote for a Nat.

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:26:35 +0000

My view is that if the Liberal Senators all agree to defer a final vote on the Bill until next year (including by sending it or just the amendments to a Senate Committee, which would have the same effect), then Kevin Rudd wuold have sufficient grounds to request a double dissolution election from the Governor-General. This doesn’t mean they will of course.

Rudd obviously won’t announce an election before Christmas. He could call it late January, early February before Parliament resumes.
No one knows for sure whether the High Court would agree that this constitutes a “failure to pass” or not. But if the High Court disagreed (assuming someone challenged the validity of any joint sitting held to pass the Bill, which I am sure they would), that would just invalidate the Bill, not the election.

It seems almost certain the Greens will hold the balance of power after a double dissolution (as they would after July 1 2011 with a normal half-Senate election), and the CPRS Bill would be put to the new Senate in the normal way after the election. It would depend on whether the re-elected Rudd government felt like negotiating with them, or just waited for the joint sitting.

Of course, as has been pointed out, that would still leave them unable to guarantee the ‘passage’ of the CPRS Regulations.

I think a February double dissolution is less likely than the legislation being deferred and the government just keeping up the pressure for its passage through until Parliament resumes, or for the CPRS passing next week. But it will be an option if the Bills end up being deferred.

By: Nick C

Nick C — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:14:42 +0000

Sorry, a little off-topic, but the Nats have preselected the relatively unknown Kevin Hogan as their candidate for Page. He’s the nominee mentioned in this article last month:
http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2009/10/27/nats-in-a-pickle-over-page/

So I think it’s safe to say you can now bet the house on Janelle Saffin to hold the seat. There’ve been no further reports about possible Liberal candidates.

By: Antony Green

Antony Green — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:53:26 +0000

The Senate voted at the second reading to send the bill into committee and it is currently being debated in committee, even if somewhat labouriously. The government has already announced the Senate and the House will be back next week to continue the debate. As has been the case all year, the government continues to display a desire to get its legislation passed rather than desire to get an early election. Some assertion now that the conditions for a double dissolution have been met would cut short any chance of the legislation being passing next week and also dimish the right of the government to attend the Copenhagen conference. Depending on what happens next week, the conditions may be entirely different. I contnue to hold to the view the conditions for a double dissolution have not been met this week.

By: David Jackmanson

David Jackmanson — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:50:37 +0000

The Government Leader in the Senate has already accused the Opposition of delaying tactics. If the Government wished to call a double dissolution all it would have to do is assert in legal form to the Governor-General that the Opposition’s actions in the Senate were of “such a delaying intention as would amount to an expression of unwillingness to pass” the CPRS legislation (Odgers Senate Practice).

Given the public expressions of opposition to the CPRS legislation by many Opposition Senators, I don’t see why the Government couldn’t make such a case if it chose, no matter whether the bill is formally being considered by the Senate or not. The Government could easily argue that the need to show it was determined to take an agreed scheme to Copenhagen would justify the double dissolution.

By: Antony Green

Antony Green — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:03:34 +0000

It does not have a case now. The bill is in the middle of Senate consideration. Depending on what happens next week it may have a case it can argue but it does not have a case now.

By: David Jackmanson

David Jackmanson — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:48:27 +0000

To the point of case law:

The Government, should it wish to call a double dissolution right now, merely has to convince the Governor-General that it has an arguable case (not a winnable case, or one the GG agrees with) that the conditions of S57 have been met. The need to tender “page after page” of advice does not mean that the Governor-General would refuse the Government’s request.

Of course there are many reasons why the Government is unlikely to call a double dissolution right now, but the confident assertions that one *could not* be called now appear to be wrong.

By: Antony Green

Antony Green — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:35:46 +0000

Ben, there is case law on the meaning of ‘fails to pass’. The PMA case in 1975 stated “The Senate has a duty to properly consider all Bills and cannot be said to have failed to pass a Bill because it was not passed at the first available opportunity; a reasonable time must be allowed.” Any request for a double dissolution will have to address this question, and there will be page after page of advice on the meaning. If the bill is simply deferred this session, the government can’t call an election until after new year. Parliament is due to sit again the first week of February, and it it is much more likely the government will just ramp up the pressure with a new sitting on the deferred bill.

By: Ben Raue

Ben Raue — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:46:06 +0000

Rob,

It doesn’t quite work like that. If I’m right, the votes are counted twice, once with a quota for six senators and the other time with a quota for twelve senators. So if we get enough votes for a Senator to be elected in a half-senate, then they get a six-year term, otherwise it’s a three-year term. So we could still get many six-year termers, but it could go either way.

By: Rob McKinlay

Rob McKinlay — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:42:06 +0000

I have to say that this whole thing has me very excited! I’ve just had an argument with one of my disgruntled ALP friends about whether a DD would be good for the greens. He argues that most of the greens senators would likely end up in the later 6 senators which only get 3 year terms.

My response to him has been that
A, It probably doesn’t matter because: if the CPRS can be greener and fixed for the next 10 years then yay!

B, Public polling suggests we will get above DD quota in every state except SA and QLD hence probably get at least four 6-year terms.

Is this strictly true? What do the more knowledgeable psephs around here think?