Tony Abbott promised us a double dissolution election.

When will he be calling it?

He has the trigger!

http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-releases/dd-trigger-ready-greens-save-cefc

he Australian Greens along with communities around Australia are celebrating the survival of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which Tony Abbott has now twice failed to abolish through the Parliament.

"The Senate won't stand for Tony Abbott's head-in-the-sand approach on global warming, and we're not afraid of a double dissolution election over renewable energy," said Greens Leader Senator Christine Milne.

"It's time for Mr Abbott to give up. The CEFC is an excellent institution that should stay.

"The CEFC is creating jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency, reducing Australia's pollution and returning money to the budget. What's not to like?

"The Abbott government has admitted the CEFC is profitable, but they're so driven by ideology that they want to wipe their hands of it and sell it off. It's just further proof that there is no budget emergency.

"Tony Abbott is a ‘crash or crash through' Prime Minister, and he's set to crash over these attempts to undo Australia's action on global warming and undermine our core values with his brutal budget.

"It's now more clear than ever that this Prime Minister does not have the skills to negotiate with the cross bench in the Senate, so you can expect that huge parts of his agenda will be blocked.

"The Greens won't entertain any compromise on our values, so we are ready for an early election, if Tony Abbott has the ticker for it."

Does he have the ticker or is the real pm (Peta Credlin) worried that they will lose seats or even government?

Get a job

Swagman wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:29pm:

Get a job

Smell the fear.

No way we will se a DD, not after "that" budget.

And the Greens have to push for fresh elections because their power in the senate is about to erode.

skippy. wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:34pm:

Swagman wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:29pm: Get a job Smell the fear.

Yes the very mention of a job makes you comrades sweat fear.  :D

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

No way we will se a DD, not after "that" budget.

The LNP will 'roll the leader' before they would 'roll the dice'  ;) :)

May you live in interesting times. ;) :)

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:13pm:

Tony Abbott promised us a double dissolution election. When will he be calling it? He has the trigger! http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-releases/dd-trigger-ready-greens-save-cefc he Australian Greens along with communities around Australia are celebrating the survival of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which Tony Abbott has now twice failed to abolish through the Parliament. "The Senate won't stand for Tony Abbott's head-in-the-sand approach on global warming, and we're not afraid of a double dissolution election over renewable energy," said Greens Leader Senator Christine Milne. "It's time for Mr Abbott to give up. The CEFC is an excellent institution that should stay. "The CEFC is creating jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency, reducing Australia's pollution and returning money to the budget. What's not to like? "The Abbott government has admitted the CEFC is profitable, but they're so driven by ideology that they want to wipe their hands of it and sell it off. It's just further proof that there is no budget emergency. "Tony Abbott is a ‘crash or crash through' Prime Minister, and he's set to crash over these attempts to undo Australia's action on global warming and undermine our core values with his brutal budget. "It's now more clear than ever that this Prime Minister does not have the skills to negotiate with the cross bench in the Senate, so you can expect that huge parts of his agenda will be blocked. "The Greens won't entertain any compromise on our values, so we are ready for an early election, if Tony Abbott has the ticker for it." Does he have the ticker or is the real pm (Peta Credlin) worried that they will lose seats or even government?

No supply has been blocked. Off and racing a bit early!

OldnCrusty wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:58pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:41pm: No way we will se a DD, not after "that" budget. The LNP will 'roll the leader' before they would 'roll the dice'  ;) :) May you live in interesting times. ;) :)

Who's 'May'?

Swagman wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:29pm:

Get a job

Why don't you go and get a bloody job.

You are on here all day ever day.

Swagman wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:29pm:

Get a job

I have a job - do you?

New senate in a matter of weeks.  No government would ask for a DD at this point, nor would a sensible GG grant one.

Keep your knickers on.

Swagman wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 1:24pm:

OldnCrusty wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:58pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:41pm: No way we will se a DD, not after "that" budget. The LNP will 'roll the leader' before they would 'roll the dice'  ;) :) May you live in interesting times. ;) :) Who's 'May'?

You probably don't know her, she's a seven year old with a few brains.  ;D

skippy. wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:34pm:

Swagman wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:29pm: Get a job Smell the fear.

Smell the stupidity. There's no trigger. Needs to have had the same legislation rejected twice, with at least three months passing between the first and second attempts to pass that legislation.  ::)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 2:58pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:34pm: Swagman wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:29pm: Get a job Smell the fear. Smell the stupidity. There's no trigger. Needs to have had the same legislation rejected twice, with at least three months passing between the first and second attempts to pass that legislation.  ::)

Criteria has been satisfied to call a DD, although it won't happen in this case because:

A) Calling an election this close to a senate reshuffle is pretty much pointless a and would waste a lot of time and money
B) Any government polling as bad as the current one would have to be completely insane to risk it.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 2:58pm:

Smell the stupidity. There's no trigger. Needs to have had the same legislation rejected twice, with at least three months passing between the first and second attempts to pass that legislation.

And it has descended into self flagellation :D

Yes you are stupid & the bill has been rejected twice already.


Quote:

Labor and the Greens have challenged the government to call a double dissolution election after the Senate defeated a bill to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation for a second time. The Senate voted down the bill on Wednesday 35 votes to 28, with the opposition, Greens and Independent senator Nick Xenophon all opposed to the scrapping of the profitable $10 billion corporation, which invests in renewable energy technology. Rejection of the bill for a second time sets up the government's first trigger for a double-dissolution election. But Treasurer Joe Hockey has instead lashed out at Labor and the Greens for ''defying'' the judgment made by voters at the last election and said the government would introduce the repeal bill for a third time next week. Greens Senator Scott Ludlam threw down the challenge in the Senate on Wednesday, calling on Prime Minister Tony Abbott to call an early election on climate change policy. ''Prime Minister Abbott if you really believe that this is absolute crap and that the Clean Energy Act is going to wipe Whyalla off the map, how’s that working out?'' he said. ''If you really believe that renewable energy can't deliver, then here is the double dissolution election trigger you’ve been waiting for.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-greens-challenge-tony-abbott-to-call-double-dissolution-election-after-climate-bill-voted-down-again-in-senate-20140618-3ad14.html#ixzz34y9eRinz

And the 2 best comments


Quote:

Unlikely, unfortunately, given the mess this government has created. - changes to how occupied territories are described - unaffordable PPL scheme still going ahead - new taxes after lying before the election that would not be any - scholarships when none previously existed - tin can NBN - polls diving, leadership speculation - billions to be spent on direct inaction - wasted money on a royal commission into pink bats that produced nothing - budget of despair - falling consumer confidence - economy now going backwards - Iraq mess - etc. etc. As previously stated the LNP don't seem capable of moving out of opposition mode - nothing actually done after 9 months and how many reviews?

Quote:

He could have a Plebiscite over the ETS. Oh that's right, he called for one when in opposition stating " if the plebiscite doesn't go my way I reserve the right to ignor it". Just like he ignored Rudds 2007 mandate for his emissions trading scheme. I recall emailing Senator Abetz re ignoring the 2007 mandate and his response. " because we think its bad policy" So to all LNP supporters and members of parliament. Why should Labor not respect your alleged mandate. Well because Labor the Greens and many Australians think no ETS is bad Policy. Abbott will not call an election as sadly when the next Senate starts in July he had the Palmer Puppet Party to support the scrapping of the soon to be ETS as Palmer has vested interests in his Coal business not ensuring our grand kids futures. What the hell wwe will be dead by then not our problem. The current LNP are hypocrites. Respect our mandate they cry, respect the will of the Australian people they say, yet when in opposition failed to do so themselves.

It has been defeated - and such a dd can be called.

Tony promised a dd - don't tell me he is now going back on his promise.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 4:45pm:

Tony promised a dd - don't tell me he is now going back on his promise.

Of all the things you could criticise the government for, not using this to call a double dissolution is a pretty poor one. 

Even if it was requested, chances are the GG wouldn't allow it, as we only have 12 days until the senate changes composition, and then anything could happen.

Maybe the honourable Brick-With-Eyes will leave PUP?
Maybe the Liberal Democrat will resign after realising he's only there because people voted him in accidentally?

Asking for a DD now would be pointless.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 4:45pm:

It has been defeated - and such a dd can be called. Tony promised a dd - don't tell me he is now going back on his promise.

mmmm how unusual for Tony  :o

There'll be no DD under a govt he leads.... :D

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 5:38pm:

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 4:45pm: It has been defeated - and such a dd can be called. Tony promised a dd - don't tell me he is now going back on his promise. mmmm how unusual for Tony  :o

What supply was blocked?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 5:38pm:

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 4:45pm: It has been defeated - and such a dd can be called. Tony promised a dd - don't tell me he is now going back on his promise. mmmm how unusual for Tony  :o

What supply was blocked?

Stratos wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 4:54pm:

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 4:45pm: Tony promised a dd - don't tell me he is now going back on his promise. Of all the things you could criticise the government for, not using this to call a double dissolution is a pretty poor one.  Even if it was requested, chances are the GG wouldn't allow it, as we only have 12 days until the senate changes composition, and then anything could happen.

Indeed .. This is the first trigger, and there will no doubt be many more - the ALP and various crossbenchers will block what they perceive to be bad policy and they have every right to vote as they see fit. By the end of the year there's going to be several more triggers lined up. Even then, I doubt even Abbott would be dumb enough to pull them while he and his government are behind in the opinion polls.

Abbott wouldn't call a DD over this anyway. He'll wait until the new Senate sits to reintroduce his carbon tax repeal bill and when/if they pass, he will probably reintroduce this bill too.

Bam wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 9:28pm:

Stratos wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 4:54pm: Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 4:45pm: Tony promised a dd - don't tell me he is now going back on his promise. Of all the things you could criticise the government for, not using this to call a double dissolution is a pretty poor one.  Even if it was requested, chances are the GG wouldn't allow it, as we only have 12 days until the senate changes composition, and then anything could happen. Indeed .. This is the first trigger, and there will no doubt be many more - the ALP and various crossbenchers will block what they perceive to be bad policy and they have every right to vote as they see fit. By the end of the year there's going to be several more triggers lined up. Even then, I doubt even Abbott would be dumb enough to pull them while he and his government are behind in the opinion polls.

How was supply blocked.

Double Dissolution is called at block of supply, not every time Government not get its way.

Posting false beats ups only serves to make Government look more invincible, that certainly serves a purpose!

Bam wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 9:28pm:

Stratos wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 4:54pm: Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 4:45pm: Tony promised a dd - don't tell me he is now going back on his promise. Of all the things you could criticise the government for, not using this to call a double dissolution is a pretty poor one.  Even if it was requested, chances are the GG wouldn't allow it, as we only have 12 days until the senate changes composition, and then anything could happen. Indeed .. This is the first trigger, and there will no doubt be many more - the ALP and various crossbenchers will block what they perceive to be bad policy and they have every right to vote as they see fit. By the end of the year there's going to be several more triggers lined up. Even then, I doubt even Abbott would be dumb enough to pull them while he and his government are behind in the opinion polls.

How was supply blocked.

Double Dissolution is called at block of supply, not every time Government not get its way.

Posting false beats ups only serves to make Government look more invincible, that certainly serves a purpose!

DaS Energy wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 10:23pm:

How was supply blocked.

That isn't necessary.  Read this, and hopefully it will explain it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-19/green-double-dissolution-speculation-misguided/5462592
Blocking supply can be grounds for a DD, but it isn't the only grounds.  As mentioned, if a senate rejects the same bill 3 months apart, it can be grounds for one.

DaS Energy wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 10:23pm:

How was supply blocked. Double Dissolution is called at block of supply, not every time Government not get its way. Posting false beats ups only serves to make Government look more invincible, that certainly serves a purpose!

The conditions stipulated by section 57 of the Constitution are—
* The trigger bill originated in the House of Representatives.
* Three months elapsed between the two rejections of the bill by the Senate ("rejection" in this context can extend to the Senate's failure to pass the bill, or to the Senate passing it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree).
* The second rejection occurred in the same session as the first, or the subsequent session, but no later.


There is no requirement that supply is blocked.

Kytro wrote on Jun 19^th, 2014 at 8:20am:

DaS Energy wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 10:23pm: How was supply blocked. Double Dissolution is called at block of supply, not every time Government not get its way. Posting false beats ups only serves to make Government look more invincible, that certainly serves a purpose! The conditions stipulated by section 57 of the Constitution are— * The trigger bill originated in the House of Representatives. * Three months elapsed between the two rejections of the bill by the Senate ("rejection" in this context can extend to the Senate's failure to pass the bill, or to the Senate passing it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree). * The second rejection occurred in the same session as the first, or the subsequent session, but no later. There is no requirement that supply is blocked.

Antony Green has made a post on the likelihood of a double dissolution election.

The constitutional triggers are a necessary condition for a double dissolution election, but they are not a sufficient condition. As well as the letter of section 57 of the Constitution, there are also some unwritten conventions for which there is some precedent.

These additional conditions are:
* The Governor General has to be satisfied that a Senate deadlock exists.
* The legislation has to be of sufficient importance to justify putting it to the electors.
If these conditions are not met, a double dissolution election is unlikely to be granted.

At present, the existing triggers for a double dissolution were obtained with the old Senate. Because the new Senate has not had an opportunity to consider the legislation, it is impossible to prove that a Senate deadlock exists with the new Senate.

The triggering legislation for abolishing the CEFC is not important enough to justify a DD election. It would be difficult to justify calling an election just for the purpose of deciding whether to abolish the CEFC.

If any triggers for a DD election are to be obtained, they would need to be obtained with the new Senate, with more important legislation or more legislation.

Kytro wrote on Jun 19^th, 2014 at 8:20am:

DaS Energy wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 10:23pm: How was supply blocked. Double Dissolution is called at block of supply, not every time Government not get its way. Posting false beats ups only serves to make Government look more invincible, that certainly serves a purpose! The conditions stipulated by section 57 of the Constitution are— * The trigger bill originated in the House of Representatives. * Three months elapsed between the two rejections of the bill by the Senate ("rejection" in this context can extend to the Senate's failure to pass the bill, or to the Senate passing it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree). * The second rejection occurred in the same session as the first, or the subsequent session, but no later. There is no requirement that supply is blocked.

Thank you, I stand corrected.

To go back to your question, the answer may lay;

A double dissolution occurs when both the Senate and the House of Representatives are shut down (dissolved), in order for a federal election to take place.

A double dissolution election is different to regular elections, when only half the Senate seats are contested. In a double dissolution, the Governor-General dissolves both the Senate and the House of Representatives at the same time, meaning every seat in both chambers is contested.

This is the only time that all senators stand for election at the same time.

There have been six double dissolutions of the Australian Parliament: in 1914, 1951, 1974, 1975, 1983 and 1987.

In 1914, 1975 and 1983, the government lost the election that resulted from the double dissolution.

Kytro wrote on Jun 19^th, 2014 at 8:20am:

DaS Energy wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 10:23pm: How was supply blocked. Double Dissolution is called at block of supply, not every time Government not get its way. Posting false beats ups only serves to make Government look more invincible, that certainly serves a purpose! The conditions stipulated by section 57 of the Constitution are— * The trigger bill originated in the House of Representatives. * Three months elapsed between the two rejections of the bill by the Senate ("rejection" in this context can extend to the Senate's failure to pass the bill, or to the Senate passing it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree). * The second rejection occurred in the same session as the first, or the subsequent session, but no later. There is no requirement that supply is blocked.

Thank you, I stand corrected.

To go back to your question, the answer may lay;

A double dissolution occurs when both the Senate and the House of Representatives are shut down (dissolved), in order for a federal election to take place.

A double dissolution election is different to regular elections, when only half the Senate seats are contested. In a double dissolution, the Governor-General dissolves both the Senate and the House of Representatives at the same time, meaning every seat in both chambers is contested.

This is the only time that all senators stand for election at the same time.

There have been six double dissolutions of the Australian Parliament: in 1914, 1951, 1974, 1975, 1983 and 1987.

In 1914, 1975 and 1983, the government lost the election that resulted from the double dissolution.

Quote:

There have been six double dissolutions of the Australian Parliament: in 1914, 1951, 1974, 1975, 1983 and 1987. In 1914, 1975 and 1983, the government lost the election that resulted from the double dissolution.

Interesting odds.