There’s been a lot of talk about double dissolutions in recent weeks, with the federal Labor government threatening an early election in particular over the Senate’s blocking of the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) legislation.
I think there’s a bit of confusion about the implications of such a threat, the likelihood that they would go through with that threat, and the likely consequences.
In this post I want to explore what would likely happen, and the potential timing issues with a DD.
I think there are two main reasons to call a DD:
- To provide flexibility for the election date when the rules are otherwise limiting the prime minister’s options; and
- To remove a parliamentary deadlock and improve the government’s political position in the parliament.
I don’t think either of those reasons apply to the current political situation, nor are they likely to apply at any time before the next election.
The double dissolution provision has been exercised seven times, most recently in 2016. In theory it provides a way to resolve disputes between the two houses over a specific piece of legislation. But in practice they resolve a more general disagreement between the houses, or reset the electoral calendar.
It’s worth pondering what issue the Labor government would be trying to solve, and whether a DD would help them achieve that goal.
In an earlier era, when major parties held most seats in parliament, the Senate was usually either government-dominated, or opposition-dominated. This meant that an opposition-dominated Senate tended to be impossible to work with, and a double dissolution would make sense as a way to resolve this issue, particularly in a situation where a newly-elected government has to deal with a Senate partially elected at a previous election which they didn’t win.
This was particularly severe prior to the introduction of proportional representation.
The Cook government won power in 1913 but only won 7 out of 18 Senate seats up for election. Labor had won all 18 seats up for election in 1910, so that gave Labor a supermajority in the Senate. In theory, a DD could have allowed a re-elected Liberal government to hold a Senate majority, but they went on to lose the election.
A similar logic applied in 1951 and 1974. The first-term Menzies government had won a majority of Senate seats at the 1949 election, but Labor retained a 15-3 advantage in the class of 1946, giving them a majority. A DD gave the re-elected Coalition a clear majority. In theory, the 1974 election could have helped Labor in a similar way, but they fell two seats short of a majority, and then had other issues which led to the 1975 dismissal.
Since the rise of minor parties, major parties rarely win a majority in the Senate. This means that governments can’t expect a pliant Senate majority, but also generally don’t have to worry about opposition majorities.
But there could still be a similar dynamic between the broader right and left blocs. You could imagine a scenario where a Coalition-One Nation Senate majority was stymying a Labor government thanks to the longer-serving Senate class being much more right-wing. But that’s not the situation we’re in.
There’s a clear progressive majority in the Senate with Labor, the Greens, ex-Greens senator Lidia Thorpe and independent David Pocock holding 39 out of 76 seats, with the two Jacqui Lambie Network senators as another option to make up the numbers.
The left did quite poorly at the 2019 Senate election, which made me think it would be possible there would be no progressive Senate majority even if Labor won the election in the House. But thanks to David Pocock defeating the ACT’s Liberal senator for the only time ever, and Labor winning a fourth left seat in Western Australia, they managed a majority.
If you just look at the 36 state senators elected in 2019 and 2022 (ignoring the territory senators who are up for election every three years), the 2019 class split 18-17 to the right, plus Jacqui Lambie in the centre. The 2022 class split 19-16 to the left, plus Lambie’s ally Tammy Tyrrell. That means 2022 was two seats more left-wing than 2019. If the 2025 election was a simple repeat of 2019, that progressive majority would increase to 41 seats, which would mean Labor and Greens could pass legislation without the support of Thorpe or Pocock.
Since Labor’s problem is not a conservative bloc in the upper house, their actual problem is within the progressive bloc.
Labor managed to win a House majority with the lowest primary vote in modern Australian political history. This means that a large proportion of Labor’s two-party-preferred vote was made up of primary votes for other parties and independents.
Since the Senate is mostly proportional, many of those votes stay with the primary vote choice, with the Greens in particular holding 12 Senate seats. Both electoral systems produced a progressive majority, but with very different make-ups. The lower house is a simple Labor majority, while the upper house is quite different.
So would a double dissolution make a difference? In short, it might slightly change the numbers but it won’t get Labor into a position where they could pass legislation without either the Greens or Coalition.
To get a sense of what might happen, we could start by looking at what would’ve happened in 2022 if it was a double dissolution. The table below compares the actual Senate composition in 2022 (consisting of 2019 and 2022 results) with a simulated DD result, and what would happen if you repeated the 2022 half-Senate election twice.
As a direct comparison with the actual post-2022 Senate, this is exactly the same for Labor, Greens and Pocock. The Jacqui Lambie Network is down one seat, while the Coalition is down four. Three of those gains go to One Nation, and two to Legalise Cannabis. If you count Legalise Cannabis as of the left, then the left is up two seats. This makes sense if you consider that the voters of 2019 no longer contribute to the result.
It’s also worth looking at the third column of results. That basically shows what would happen if the 2022 result was repeated again in 2025, so in one sense is a fair like-with-like comparison with the DD simulation, since it is only based on votes cast in 2022. In that scenario, the total size of the left bloc is the same, but Labor wins two more seats in a repeat half-Senate election, with those seats going to Legalise Cannabis instead in a double dissolution. On the right, One Nation picks up three more at the expense of JLN, UAP and the Coalition.
You can also draw some general conclusions from this simulation as to who would benefit from the change in electoral rules – in particular, the replacement of two cohorts of senators elected at magnitude 6 with one cohort elected at magnitude 12.
Small parties that can consistently win one seat at each election can accrue two senators in a state without having a high enough vote to win two seats at a double dissolution – that is the position the Jacqui Lambie Network is in. A single DD quota is 7.7%. The JLN polled 8.6% in 2022 and 8.9% in 2019. That doesn’t leave much left over after winning one seat.
This is also the position the South Australian Greens found themselves in 2016. The Greens have won a Senate seat in SA at every election since 2007, giving them two at a time, but in 2016 they could only manage a single seat, and Robert Simms thus lost his seat. Sarah Hanson-Young only achieved a three-year term, so it wasn’t until 2022 that they were able to regain that second seat.
For parties who fall short of winning any Senate seats, that becomes more feasible in a DD. That’s the position of Legalise Cannabis, who pick up two seats in this simulation. It also boosts One Nation. In the simulation, Malcolm Roberts misses out on a second One Nation seat in Queensland, but they gain four other seats elsewhere. That’s a perfect example of winners and losers – stronger minor parties can be disadvantaged by the loss of a second cohort, while smaller minor parties benefit from the lower quota.
As for the Greens, their 2022 vote was enough to win two seats in every state. In comparison, in 2016 they only won nine, winning just one seat in Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia.
But to get a sense of what would happen if the Greens vote changes, I’ve posted the number of DD quotas polled by the Greens in 2022, along with those for the four other main parties. I’ll refer to this table later for the other parties.
| State | LNP | ALP | GRN | ON | UAP |
| NSW | 4.774 | 3.957 | 1.490 | 0.536 | 0.439 |
| VIC | 4.198 | 4.088 | 1.801 | 0.378 | 0.521 |
| QLD | 4.579 | 3.210 | 1.611 | 0.962 | 0.545 |
| WA | 4.117 | 4.492 | 1.853 | 0.454 | 0.277 |
| SA | 4.410 | 4.194 | 1.554 | 0.521 | 0.394 |
| TAS | 4.162 | 3.515 | 2.013 | 0.505 | 0.211 |
The Greens are quite close to a second quota in Victoria and Western Australia, and slightly exceed it in Tasmania.
If the Greens were to see a drop in support, you could see their second senators at risk in New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland.
Labor’s strategy in threatening a double dissolution seems to be partly about playing on the Greens’ fears of losing those seats, but polling at the moment doesn’t point to a decline in Greens support. The party polled just over 12% in the House in 2022, and they have mostly been polling around 11-14% (more often over 12% than under it).
As for Labor, could they gain seats? If you look at the table above, Labor polled roughly 4 quotas in VIC, NSW and SA, polling about 4.5 in WA, 3.5 in Tasmania and 3.2 in Queensland. My simulation gave Labor five seats in Western Australia, three in Queensland and four elsewhere.
National polling currently has Labor roughly up a couple of points on primary votes, but not up by too much. At the most we’re talking about half a DD quota if the swing was uniform. Perhaps if they did particularly well in Queensland they could pick up a fourth seat there, but it’s hard to see anything else taking place.
It’s worth noting they achieved a remarkable three-seat result in Western Australia in 2022. It’s unlikely they could repeat that, and the calling of a DD would surrender that advantage that will otherwise remain until the 2025 election.
Overall, I think a double dissolution (assuming Labor is re-elected, as seems likely) would result in a Labor government still reliant on the Greens, potentially also reliant on others such as Legalise Cannabis and David Pocock. It could see Labor gain a seat or two, or the Greens lose a handful of seats, but it won’t change the strategic balance.
I should probably touch on the question of a joint sitting. Albanese yesterday raised the prospect of using a joint sitting to pass the government’s housing bill.
It is possible that they could achieve a joint sitting majority for such a piece of legislation. Right now this bill has a sizeable House majority, with pretty much the entire non-Greens crossbench in the House supporting the legislation in the House and Pocock and Lambie in support in the Senate.
The government currently holds 104 seats across the two houses. You need 114 votes to pass legislation at a joint sitting. Right now I believe all of the House teals, plus the two JLN members and David Pocock all support the HAFF. There hasn’t been much attention paid to the rest of the House crossbench, since the pinch-point is in the Senate, but generally it seems like those on that crossbench support it too, which gets you over 114 votes. And that’s before considering the possibility that Labor could significantly increase their House majority. So yes, it is possible that strategy could work. But in the end this strategy only works for the exact legislation used as a trigger, and the next day Labor will end up back to a Senate where they need to negotiate with the Greens. It seems like a lot of pain for not much gain.
I haven’t really touched on the prospects for the government in winning another term in the House. The polls at the moment suggest the government has picked up some support since the last election, although that could easily melt away. It seems likely they would win another election, likely with a majority and potentially with an increased majority.
But this brings me to my other point, which is about timing.
Australia’s constitution sets some clear rules about when elections can be held. House elections can be held at any time, but the House must be dissolved three years after that House first sat, which sets a time limit of just over three years, once you factor in the time for a campaign. The Senate has a fixed three year term, and half-Senate elections can only be held in the final year of the term. Most federal elections include a House and half-Senate election, which I will refer to as a “typical election”. For a typical election, both sets of rules must be followed simultaneously.
A double dissolution doesn’t follow those same rules, but can’t be called with less than six months left before the expiry of the House. In addition to a double dissolution generally needing to be held earlier than a typical election, it also accelerates the timing of the following election by backdating the Senate terms to the previous July 1.
This means that if you hold a double dissolution election in March 2025, the Senate term is considered to have started in July 2024, and the next election must be held prior to June 2027. In practice that would likely mean a May 2027 election, barely two years after the previous election.
Whereas if you hold a typical election on the normal schedule in May 2025, the following election won’t be due until May 2028. That’s a whole year lost in order to hold a double dissolution, even though the actual election date is just a few months apart. Even if you held an earlier typical election in November 2024, that would still put you on track for the following election to be later than a March 2025 double dissolution.
The Senate term forces typical elections into a window, but doesn’t limit them very tightly. The other limiting factor is that House elections must be called within three years of the first sitting of the House after the previous election. In practice, this means that an election can be called slightly more than three years after the last election.
Typical elections thus tend to fall in one of two windows: either in the early part of the year in the final months of the Senate term (say March-May), or in the second half of the year with over six months left in the Senate term (say August-November). If elections are held in March-May, the new Senate takes over pretty much straightaway once the results are declared. If elections are held in August-November, new senators have half a year to wait around before taking their seats, and the lame duck Senate will usually have some real work to do.
If the previous election was held in the March-May window, the prime minister has flexibility to call a typical election in the August-November window of the previous year. But it is pretty much impossible to call a later election without putting it in the heat of summer. So once that early election is called, the only way to restore the previous schedule is to hold a double dissolution and reset the clock.
The 1984 federal election was held late in 1984, with the Senate terms expiry in mid-1985. This meant that a typical election was due to be held in the second half of 1987 prior to the expiry of the Senate term in mid-1988.
Following the July 1987 double dissolution election, the 1990, 1993 and 1996 elections were held in March. John Howard called the 1998 election early in October. The next five elections were held in the second half of the year.
Then Malcolm Turnbull held an election in July 2016, and the following elections were held in May 2019 and May 2022, at the last minute prior to the expiry of the Senate term.
The 1987 and 2016 double dissolutions were thus held just a few months before the deadline for a typical election, and were held in early July, so that the following typical election wasn’t due for almost three years.
When the previous election was held in the second half of the year, there is very little room for the prime minister to call the election early. A double dissolution provides that flexibility. When the previous election was held in the first half of the year, that flexibility is available without calling a DD.
If a double dissolution was held at the end of this term, it wouldn’t fit this pattern. The next typical election is due by May 2025. A double dissolution held in late 2024 or early 2025 would force the following election to be held no later than May 2027, whereas a typical election on that schedule would give the government a full three years in the following term.
I think there’s even less of a chance of a double dissolution being held prior to July 2024. I expect that it will take until mid-2024 for the federal redistributions to be finalised. If the election was called before that point, it would trigger mini-redistributions in the three affected states.
If the government wants to go early, they don’t need a DD, they can just call a typical election in late 2024.
I wouldn’t want this very long blog post to be seen as an argument against double dissolutions. I personally dislike electing senators for six year terms, and like the increased magnitude of electing the whole Senate at once. If I had my way, we’d have a double dissolution for every election. But I just don’t see how it would make sense for the government, either to improve their political position in the parliament or to provide flexibility when it comes to calling an election. I just don’t think we’ll see one in this term.
Pretty much agree with everything you said Ben and personally I think Labor is using this as a bit of a blow torch to the Green’s underbelly, that the Greens will soon see it for what it is – a bluff. The Greens appear to see an opportunity to differentiate themselves and grow their base and they are pushing more and more. As I have said in the past, when you only get 32-34% of the primary vote, you (Labor) are always going to be living in heart attack territory, being wholly dependent on the good will of the Greens and friendly cross-benchers.
Personally I think there is more downsides than upsides to call a DD election and Albo doesn’t strike me as a high risk taker – sure and steady is his mantra.
The ONLY possibility I can see a DD election this year is if the Voice referendum is going down the gurgler fast. While I will be voting Yes, if I was to put on my critical thinking cap, I have not heard a real compelling and convincing argument to the masses for it; and that is not being helped by the responsible Minister, who IMHO does not do a good job communicating the rationale. This belief that the discussion is now out with the public to be had is malarkey and a fool’s belief that somehow people are taking amongst themselves about the pros and cons of The Voice (the referendum, not the talent quest). It has and will be driven by well targeted and funded No campaigns backed up by media and politicians. If I had my way I would put Jason Clare on the job as he has the straight talking cut through to push it along, but that is a not a good look for a white man to be the lead proponent for what is essentially an Aboriginal issue.
If the referendum was wrapped up into the DD then it would get a few LNP politicians very nervous about their re-election prospects (being seen once again on the wrong side of an issue). Despite their bleating of late, I don’t think the general public is ready to immediately put the LNP back into power and holding the two votes together will be a way to clarify people’s thinking, but I concede that this does not guarantee that two affirmative answers will go hand in hand. But I agree this strategy would not likely improve their political power and is likely to get a few more supportive cross benchers offside as well.
[Correction]
Based on May 2023 enrolments, if the mini-redistribution mechanism finally got a run, I get a Warringah-Bradfield merger in NSW, Higgins-Chisholm in VIC and a third division being carved out of Cowan-Perth in WA
Dean
When I did the sums last I came up with Warringah – Wentworth being the merged seat in NSW. The boundary runs down the middle of Sydney Harbour. I agree with Higgins – Chisholm in Victoria.
@Dean Ashley
While preferable to Warringah-Wentworth, Warringah and Bradfield shares VERY little border. I know this doesn’t matter to AEC’s decision though.
On a separate note, I would think that mini-redistribution laws should be changed to consolidate 3 seats into 2 instead of 2 to 1 to reduce malapportionment. (admittedly we need a law change for this) In such case, I think the combination would be Bradfield Chopped in 2 and shared between Warringah and Berowra, making 3 seats that are around 13% below quota – an improvement compared to mashing 2 into 1.
Leon, they could still the 2 to 1 change. But it would only be temporary, and a full redistribution is then required to be performed after the early election.
On the timing of the DD, I would actually think late this year is more viable. As Neil Flanagan said the ALP could roll it into the Voice referendum, particularly if the vote fall stalls around 43-47% Yes. Albo and Labor would try to bet that their popularity could get it and them over the line. It also means the Senate backdates to July 2023 (as per the article) meaning an election in the first half of 2026 so keeping elections 3 years apart (even if only 2 1/2 in practice). Watch for a late November/early December Voice date, a DD firms considerably.
On the counts front, what change could a Teal Independent(s) do to upset the counts above? As I see it, Teals draw from disaffected Lib voters who have been voting for Labor/Greens/Indies without any great enthusiasm, could Teals do enough to deprive the Greens, or even the Libs or Labor several seat? And what does that do to the Senate make up?
Lastly – RGR failed principally as the G part seemed to close to the Gs, almost like the tail wagging the dog at times. I suspect that the ALP are desperate not for that to happen again, as that could mean a very short end to the current Government. What is fine for the ACT/Northcote Council, is not fine for outer suburbia.
It doesn’t matter about the senate, Labor will call one to get a large majority in the mid 80’s poss up to 90 seats.
If the government sees a way to solidify it’s position and destroy the opposition and remove an opposition leader. It’s a win for them to stay in power further long term.
I wouldn’t necessarily count Legalise Cannabis as “left” – as a single issue party it doesn’t appear to really have any ideological cohesion beyond its single issue. For example, while the Victorian and NSW Legalise Cannabis MLCs are definitely on the left, the WA Legalise Cannabis MLCs are of a right-libertarian antivax conspiracy theorist persuasion. I believe the Queensland Senate candidate at last election appeared to be progressive, but I don’t know about their candidates in the other states, and of course who knows what their candidates at future elections will be like.
@Babaluma as you mentioned, Legalise Cannabis are a single-issue party. I would describe them as big tent; i.e left-wingers, right-wingers and centrists all uniting together as one party simply because they all support one key issue: the legalisation of recreational cannabis usage, which is already legal in the ACT. The Greens already support this, as does the Reason Party (a left-libertarian political party in Victoria, which is a merger of many other smaller parties: the Science Party, the Pirate Party, the Secular Party, Vote Planet and the Climate Change Justice Party). But the difference is these parties have other policies, whereas Legalise Cannabis is only pro-cannabis (in fact their website does not take note of any other party policies).
@redistributed – I think you’re right about it being Warringah-Wentworth as the mini-redistribution candidates in NSW. I didn’t consider them to be contiguous due to lacking a shared land border, but looking at the AEC maps of the divisions, the boundary seems to be a line through the harbour. Essentially the harbour is treated as a very wide river rather than as a bay.
I think the threat of a DD election isn’t so much for Labor to get more seats nor a more cooperative crossbench but rather as a way to pressure the Greens and Coalition to back the HAFF or be punished. Polling suggests the Coalition will lose seats and based on Ben’s numbers, the Greens will get less than 2 quotas per state, meaning they could get just 1 senator per state if they’re unlucky and their quota is too low. Lidia Thorpe will split the left-of-Labor vote in Victoria. If a DD were to occur, Jacqui Lambie’s personal vote will save her but not her running mate.
The timing of a DD or general election in 2024 will be tricky. First there’s redistributions due for mid-2024. There will then be limited options if federal Labor wants to avoid school holidays and the ACT/NT/QLD elections. I still think that QLD state elections should be fixed to the first half of the leap year to avoid the Olympics, territory elections and US Presidential elections. If federal Labor were optimistic, they’d probably aim for an early election around the second half of 2024 close to the ACT election.
Nether Portal:
Fusion is the Science+Pirate+Secular+Climate merger.
Reason is the rebranded Sex Party, and IIRC they also picked up Voluntary Euthanasia and Cyclists along the way.
As for DD prospects – concur with Ben. Too much downside, not enough upside.
Kevin Bonham even said that if there is a swing of 0.7% from Lambie to the Greens in Tasmania, the Greens would get 2 long-term senators in a DD. I doubt they can get a 3rd in a DD but the next half-senate election will give them a 3rd senator.
There is no chance of a double dissolution. Malcolm Turnbull made that mistake in 2016 when he had a double dissolution. As a result, a heap of minor parties were elected to the Senate on half quotas. This caused a lot of problems for Turnbull later on. This would not have happened at a normal election.
The only way a DD makes sense strategically is if Labor cares more about the possibility of breaking the Greens than securing the numbers for a bill they ultimately don’t care all that much about, and they’re desperate to roll that dice before either the Voice inevitably fails and/or the summer bushfire/coral bleaching season starts. So I’m going to be slightly contrarian here and say there’s at least a chance of it happening.
Thorpe has said she doesn’t intend to run for re-election, and even if she did she’d be unlikely to cause much of an issue for the Greens as her voters’ preferences would mostly flow back to them. Babet is another crossbencher who has said he doesn’t intend to stand for re-election.
Turnbull’s thinking in going to a double dissolution was correct, as the idea was to remove the large number of minor party senators elected in 2013 who the government found even more difficult to work with than the 2016 slate. If they had only gone to a half-senate election, it would have been similarly bad to the 2013 senate, as all the 2013 minor party senators would have remained, the Coalition would have lost a seat, and they would not have had the bloc of 4 relatively co-operative One Nation senators (only Hanson would have been elected in a half-senate election) to make negotiations easier that they did after the double dissolution.
Thanks Ben for the interesting article.
I challenge your framing of David Pocock as definitively on the left. He should be considered a centrist:
1. He was elected at the expense of the right. This is much the same as the Lambie Senators (who you position in the centre) have done twice in Tasmania.
2. He considers every argument on its merit, rather than on an ideological left or right basis.
3. While he is certainly pro-environment, that doesn’t mean that he himself is left, it is more that the conservatives have abandoned their traditional interests in *conservation* to pursue other right-sided agendas.
I agree that a DD seems unlikely. The main risk to Labor, it seems, is that it would redraw the Labor vs Green voting cohorts in a new way relative to how they have split in the past. That could either see some green voters turn red, or it could just as easily see more red voters turn green. The long-term trend towards an increasing minor party vote would be working against Labor succeeding from a DD, but any short-term issues could of course see swings either way.
Pocock is definitely on the left, he’s to the left of Labor on most issues, only rarely being to the right of them over concerns about small businesses. Neither of these have posed much obstacle to Labor negotiating with him to pass legislation.
Lambie on the other hand is much more idiosyncratic and did not get along particularly well with the previous Coalition government, but also does not get along particularly well with the current Labor government.
Labor is not meaningfully at risk of losing senate seats to the Greens at a double dissolution – there aren’t really any chances of the Greens gaining any more seats beyond the one they lost from Thorpe quitting, for a maximum of 12. They would have to significantly increase their vote before there was any chance of that happening.
“He was elected at the expense of the right.”
Right, so every Labor MP who wins a seat off a Liberal can’t be on the left?
Should the Voice referendum be defeated, the chances of a DD are next to nothing. If the referendum goes down, the Albanese Government will be very bloody and bruised and not want to risk an adventure. Loss in the referendum would also show the government to be electorally fragile especially in those states where it loses. The other downside of a DD is that the term following has to be short because the senate date backdates to the previous 1 July. Turnbull largely avoided this in 2016, and Hawke in 1987 by having the election in July and Morrison went as late as possible in 2019. Hawke went earlier in 1990. Going to the polls so soon is not popular with voters as Hawke again learned to his dismay in 1984. Should the Senate be expanded then the next half senate election will be 8 senators in each state (if it goes to 14) rather than 6. That may also have the same DD unintended electoral consequences.
Pocock was elected due to name recognition. expect him to lose in 2025
Ben: yeah that tracks actually
@redistributed – that is why I think the only chance of a DD is to do it this year alongside the voice referendum. Use Albo’s political capital to get re-elected and get the voice over the line. The other thing that might be in their minds is the likelihood of a recession, and possibly a deep one. Getting an election out of the way now rather than wait for the downturn might be the way to go
@Babulma
“Pocock is … to the left of Labor on most issues”
That puts Pocock in the centre, because the current Labor Government is actually to the right of the centre. Look at Labor’s right-sided policies; lower taxes for high income earners, increasing defence spending, maintaining higher spending for private schools than public schools, maintaining housing market capital over accessibility, environmental reforms via market-based mechanisms (the “green wall street”) in preference to legislation and direct government funding, etc. So based on ideology, Labor is centre-right.
The only reasons we currently still accept Labor as a left-sided party in articles like this are 1. the historical path from labour unions and 2. practical convenience in the binary government vs opposition head count in parliament.
“Lambie on the other hand is much more idiosyncratic…”
This is a difference in style more than substance. Pocock positions himself as a collaborator. Lambie positions herself as a fighter. That makes it easier for Labor to work with Pocock, but it doesn’t make Pocock distinctly left.
“Labor is not meaningfully at risk of losing senate seats to the Greens at a double dissolution [in the *Senate*].”
Yes, good point, and I agree. I was speaking more generally about the how the debate around the HAFF and a potential DD would impact a whole DD election, including whether calling a DD might impact on the outcome in red v green seats in the lower house such as Ryan or Macnamara.
——
@ Ben
“Right, so every Labor MP who wins a seat off a Liberal can’t be on the left?”
Pocock is in a 2-seat contest in the ACT, and won the seat that has traditionally been won by the right. Note that the left-sided Greens might have challenged for that seat in the past, but as far as I know, they never won it. Perhaps part of the reason Pocock was successful when the Greens weren’t was because Pocock won more votes from both sides. This indicates he’s more of a centrist.
I was pointing out that Pocock’s win at the expense of the right was much the same as Lambie’s, where the last 2x election outcomes have kept Tassie’s 3x left-sided seats intact while the Lambie seats have been won at the expense of the Liberals.
You already accept Lambie as being in the centre, so why not Pocock too?
@peter pocock like lambie won because of name recognition he got enough votes on his own name to be elected on labor and green preferences. indicating the left wanted him more then they wanted the liberals meaning hes of the left.
@John are you suggesting that the only reason David Pocock was elected is because he has the word “cock” embedded in his last name?
MLV: the risk of trying to tie an early election to the Voice is that the opposite will occur, the mixed popularity of The Voice might end up dragging Albo down rather than him pulling it up.
Nether Portal, well he certainly likes Chickens as his first Wikipedia photo was him with a chicken in his hand, JK.
But in all seriousness I see him being re-elected if the Libs run suicide and run Zed again. He is too right wing for the ACT,y suggestion to the Liberals is running the last elected Liberal chief minister who frequently appears on The Drum, Kate Carnell. She is moderate and has name recognition.
It’s unlikely Dutton and and Zed will appeal to the ACT, they even failed miserably with Alistair Coe at the territory level, this is the Massachusetts of Australia. Only a Charlie Baker style conservative can win in the ACT, but I’d compare Zed and Alistair Coe to Geoff Diehl who lost in a landslide to Maura Healey the now democratic governor of Massachusetts, Baker faced a primary challenge from the extreme right so he retired and gave the state away to the left.
Canberra and Boston are very similar. So it’s time the Liberal party start taking it seriously and run credible moderates.
Pocock is a dead set to retain his seat next time – he is delivering on his promises in terms of advocacy on the issue he was elected on & is doing the hard work on local political issues – I disagree with his stance on some issues – but he is proving to be an active visible representative
@John
“…he got enough votes on his own name to be elected on labor and green preferences indicating the left wanted him more then they wanted the liberals meaning hes of the left.”
That doesn’t follow.
Pocock’s vote:
0.64 quotas directly
~0.31 quotas as preferences from the Greens
~0.13 quotas as preferences from Kim Rubenstein
Labor won 1.0 quotas, so no significant preference flows from Labor to Pocock or anyone else.
ACT Senate votes relative to the 2019 election:
Labor vote dropped by -0.18 quotas
Liberal vote dropped by -0.33
Greens vote dropped by -0.22
Source:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/results/senate
https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2019/results/senate
It’s reasonable to conclude that Pocock’s first preference vote came from a broad mixture of people who had previously voted for major and minor parties (like the new community independents in the house). A bit less than a third of Pocock’s vote was from Green preferences, and none from Labor. That doesn’t make Pocock left, it only proves that he’s more left than the right-sided alternative. That puts him in the centre.
Is my computer Japanese because it contains a Japanese chip, even though all the other parts in it were made in either China, Taiwan, and Vietnam?
“That puts Pocock in the centre, because the current Labor Government is actually to the right of the centre.”
This is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion though. We are discussing left & right blocs in the Senate in relation to the major parties. Pocock belongs in the same bloc (whatever you want to call it – I’m fine with the claim that many of Labor’s policies these days are centre-right in some broader objective sense but this does nothing to aid this discussion of voting blocs) as Labor and the Greens, both in ideological terms relating to policy positions, and voting behaviour, which are what matters here.
Pocock’s ability to attract some portion of previous Liberal voters doesn’t really say anything about his ideological position or voting behaviour. The Greens were able to get a large swing from the Liberals to win Ryan for instance – does that make the Greens a centrist party?
@Babaluma
You previously suggested that Pocock is left of Labor, and I agreed, and explained how that is consistent with Pocock’s position as a centrist.
In terms of Senate blocs, Ben has put Lambie in the centre, which accepts that a central position does exist. (It is important to recognise that we’re not forcing all Senators into a binary categorisation of a left-or-right split). I’m arguing Pocock should be in the centre with Lambie because they are both not automatic supporters of Labor’s policies – they each need to be convinced of a policy’s merit.
I don’t think anyone is disputing that the Greens are on the left. In Ryan in 2022, it appears the left made a more convincing argument to those voters than the right.
I hope I’ve made a fair and reasonable argument, but it’s not an issue of great importance. We’re also only part way into this sitting term so we’ll see how the Senate continues to play through to the next election, whether that’s a normal or DD. Thanks to all for this discussion.
The Greens are also not automatic supporters of Labor policies and need to be convinced of the merits of too? If Pocock is to the left of Labor, generally, and Lambie is generally somewhere in between Labor and the Coalition, then it doesn’t make sense to group them together.
But yes, this doesn’t really matter particularly
@Babaluma
You do raise an interesting point.
Arguably, a defining feature of the crossbench is that none of these MPs are automatic supporters of the government-of-the-day’s policies.
But, to return to your helpful suggestion of focusing on the Senate blocs, how many of these crossbenchers are automatic opposers to the ‘alternative government’?
The Greens would give confidence and supply to Labor but not to the LNP. Left bloc. The inverse for the right-sided micro parties. Right bloc.
Pocock and Lambie might have different personal preferences as to who they would most like to form government, but both would respect the voters’ choices and accept the balance of confidence as defined in the House. In the Senate, I suspect both would continue to vote on policies on their merit. We presume that it might be easier for Pocock to work with Labor and Lambie with the LNP due to a smaller ideological distance between them respectively, but I don’t think either Senator would be automatically opposed one way or the other.
So it seems most appropriate to put them both in the centre, as no matter the party in government, both Senators would most likely play the normal Senate role of policy review.
Regarding Pocock, I think he’s a got a good chance of reelection at this rate. The Liberals will be on the defensive whilst Labor will be on the offensive and defensive. Pocock may get a sophomore surge and the icing on the cake would be ALP and Greens recovering some of their senate vote.
He has some characteristics of teal independents in the lower house and methinks he was a by-product of the teal wave last election. For example, last election, Labor (Katy)/Liberal (Zed) campaigned for ACT Senate seats as if they were in marginal seats, like how Liberals in now-teal seats did.
To be competitive, the ACT Liberals should preselect a more moderate, socially progressive candidate and not a hard-right social conservative like Zed Seselja.
The problem with pocock and the teals is that they were all elected on the back of the anti governamtn vote. My guess is that will change now the liberals are in opposition. They will also feel backlash if they go against the majority of people in their electorate in the voice referendum. I think Wentworth, Mackellar and Warringa might be safe but I think the others could fall back to the liberals. I think pocock got in because of his name and people not really knowing what he stands for. I reckon he might fizzle though he may gain votes from the left in particular labour and the greens
The protest vote against the last government went in many of directions – it wasn’t just the independents who benefited. There is also the ongoing trend away from major parties.
More significantly, Pocock and other independents attracted people who wanted to see better integrity, climate action, and fairness. Since then, they’ve been representing their communities directly by pursuing these issues in parliament, so they are making strong cases to be returned on that basis.
At a macro level, yeah I think a lot of the Teals are gonna go backwards or lose their seats now that Morrison and Coalition are no longer in government.
I don’t think that holds for Pocock. My feeling is he represents the culmanation of a years long yearning from left-of-centre Canberrans to kick the Libs out but never being satisfied with The Greens.
Since being elected, I think he’s been doing exactly what he was elected to do, in speaking up on territory issues and advocating for Canberra. It doesn’t hurt that he’s a a great public speaker and easy on the eyes. I only see his vote going up, as Green-ish voters who were sceptical of him in 2022 would now be willing to back him in going forward.
Joeldi
Most of the Teals were ‘made in a lab’ for their seats. If any were at risk, Monique Ryan seems most likely as she is the most polarising and is seemingly further to the left than her constituents. The upcoming NSW redistribution might be tricky as Scamps, Steggall and Tink may be forced into competition by new boundaries. Spender is probably safe also – the future boundaries for Wentworth may see the Libs never holding the seat again.
@Redistributed
I note that Kooyong always had a way higher Green vote than all the other 6 teal seats (Still below Higgins) (and not just in 2019 when they ran Burnside) so there is some reason to suspect she will be okay. Besides, the 2022 result were inflated for the Libs given Frydenberg was the incumbent Treasurer while the other 6 teal seats I think were held by backbenchers.
I think all 7 teals would survive very easily on current boundaries, but redistribution will be a problem for some, especially Chaney and Scamps (Chaney may lose some Stirling area while Scamps may be forced to take on St Ives).
North Sydney is trending left as we speak so even with a slightly unfavourable redistribution Tink will be fine on 2cp. There is a small chance Tink may fall 3rd but I think Green preferences will favour her (against Libs and Labor) WAY more than it did last time given the current spats between Albanese and the Greens.
Spender can only gain Labor areas which will come back to her in preferences. She won’t fall 3rd.
Steggall can pretty much only gain areas from other teal seats, and her margin is wide to start with anyway so she is fine too.
I am not sure about Goldstein and Kooyong in regards to redistribution.
Leon
On thesubjectof GOLDSTEIN, to answer your questions;- Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction from 8.10.2021 was Hon., Tim Wilson‘s full title, through to 23.5.2022.
With the impending disappearance of Hotham, a vacuum is created such that under-populated GOLDSTEIN, HIGGINS and the Northern end of ISSACS will be sucked south-east, east & north-east respectively.
Melbourne PORTS is in constant threat of coughing up Caulfield, &, to do so to either of the first two afore-mentioned seats, would help to dislodge the ‘Teal,’ & the ‘Red-Teal’ respectively.
On thesubjectof KOOYONG, in similar vein it would be sucked south S/E, & if it approaches Oakleigh, then Monique Ryan’s leftism may grate on Greek refugees from Communism, & their families.
Other than that, in the nature of these things, they are pretty safe, until they have to make a decision.
They are all facing redistribution, which might be a record for a new ‘party’
Back to zero prospect
Not “zero” that would be delusional. The housing fiasco isn’t over over yet. And the government isn’t finished on that issue so the government will likely introduce other bills in this parliament that piss off the Greens and we will once again be under a threat of double-dissolution.
The government will only try to make a double dissolution happen if they are well ahead in the polls which at the moment there would be an average of 3% swing to them. The only real issue is they could lose a senate seat in WA if a DD was held today because Labor is not doing as well as they did in the half senate in 2022.
Didn’t Turnbull call a double dissolution in 2016 over the CFMEU? And if so, did he end up passing the laws he wanted to for them? Or was it declared dead because the result in the double dissolution wasn’t strong enough in the senate for the coalition? I never heard news back then about the bill failing.
The trigger for the 2016 DD election was the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) bill. It was a Howard-era body that Turnbull wanted to resurrect. It was a flimsy reason for calling an election and it wasn’t even one of the most discussed issues. It ended up passing with support from One Nation and NXT. Labor abolished it early this year.
@ Daniel t given parliament has risen the next sitting date isn’t until after the referendum. So any potential double dissolution can’t happen until at least next year. Given labors strong position from the 22 election gaining an extra seat in WA and QLD it would be political suicide to put those at risk now when they are guaranteed to sit until 2028 they would be better waiting an extra couple months for the earliest possible general election in August. They would not gain any extra seats from the current Senate that is on 6 year terms and only 1 or maybe 2 on the ones due to expire at which point it would be easier to just wait until August. They also risk losing teal ally David pocock.
@Votante If you think the ABCC was a weak reason for a DD, the 1975 DD was called on the advice of Fraser, based on trigger bills that had accumulated under Whitlam, with the Coalition opposing them.
Comments are closed.