Australian Politics Forum - Where's the double dissolution Tony?

Fit of Absent Mindeness Gold Member Offline We need more fits of absent mindedness Posts: 1622 Brisbane Gender:	Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony? Reply #15 - 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.
Back to top	Putting the n in cuts IP Logged

Stratos

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4725

Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #16 - Jun 18^th, 2014 at 4:54pm

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.

Back to top

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm:

Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act

IP Logged

Ex Dame Pansi Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 24168	Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony? Reply #17 - Jun 18^th, 2014 at 5:38pm 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
Back to top	"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Hendrix andrei said: Great isn't it? Seeing boatloads of what is nothing more than human garbage turn up..... IP Logged

Swagman Gold Member Offline Beware of cheap imitations...... Posts: 15095 Illawarra NSW Gender:	Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony? Reply #18 - Jun 18^th, 2014 at 5:51pm There'll be no DD under a govt he leads....
Back to top	IP Logged

DaS Energy Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3962 Gender:	Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony? Reply #19 - Jun 18^th, 2014 at 8:48pm Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 5:38pm: 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 What supply was blocked?
Back to top	IP Logged

DaS Energy Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3962 Gender:	Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony? Reply #20 - Jun 18^th, 2014 at 8:48pm Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 5:38pm: 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 What supply was blocked?
Back to top	IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #21 - Jun 18^th, 2014 at 9:28pm

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

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.

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.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 30428 Gender:	Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony? Reply #22 - Jun 18^th, 2014 at 9:42pm 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

DaS Energy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3962
Gender: male

Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #23 - Jun 18^th, 2014 at 10:23pm

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

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

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.

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!

Back to top

IP Logged

DaS Energy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3962
Gender: male

Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #24 - Jun 18^th, 2014 at 10:23pm

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

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

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.

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!

Back to top

IP Logged

Stratos

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4725

Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #25 - Jun 18^th, 2014 at 10:29pm

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-misgu...
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.

Back to top

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm:

Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act

IP Logged

Kytro

Gold Member

Offline

Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #26 - Jun 19^th, 2014 at 8:20am

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #27 - Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:14pm

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

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.

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.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

DaS Energy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3962
Gender: male

Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #28 - Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:48pm

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

DaS Energy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3962
Gender: male

Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #29 - Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:49pm

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged