Anyone following federal politics will know that a double dissolution is a strong prospect. With Senate voting reforms, a double dissolution is likely to remove most of the independent Senators. So a double dissolution (or a double D, as the media loves to call it) would have two large benefits to the current government: it would clear out the existing grab-bag of Senators; and they might be able to get key legislation passed through Parliament after the double D — legislation that hadn’t got through the current Senate.
If the current government uses this strategy and it works (two substantial ifs, granted), then it might be attractive for future governments to follow this approach as well, as long as they have a good chance of re-election. The benefits of a double D remain: it allows the passage of legislation that may not get through Parliament otherwise. But the main downside — the election of ‘meddlesome’ independents — is now greatly diminished. Therefore, why wouldn’t this government, and future governments, lean towards this strategy? A government doing reasonably well in the polls could line up multiple triggers for a double D and then (likely) have them passed after the election.
It may or may not be a good thing for this to occur. It might be easier to pass unpopular but beneficial economic reforms; but it will also be easier to pass bad legislation or to wind back beneficial reforms. For example, successive governments might re-establish, abolish and re-re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) through double dissolutions.
The risks of policy swings are obvious, but they should not be overstated: the system will probably ensure there would be at least six years between the re-instatement of the ABCC and its abolition at a later joint sitting. Regardless, an increasing prevalence of double D elections won’t address an underlying problem with Australian politics: populism will remain regardless whether it is driven by independents or major parties. This is yet more evidence of the need for organisations such as the CIS in prosecuting the case for reform.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Double Dissolutions: will they become the new norm?
Double Dissolutions: will they become the new norm?
If the current government uses this strategy and it works (two substantial ifs, granted), then it might be attractive for future governments to follow this approach as well, as long as they have a good chance of re-election. The benefits of a double D remain: it allows the passage of legislation that may not get through Parliament otherwise. But the main downside — the election of ‘meddlesome’ independents — is now greatly diminished. Therefore, why wouldn’t this government, and future governments, lean towards this strategy? A government doing reasonably well in the polls could line up multiple triggers for a double D and then (likely) have them passed after the election.
It may or may not be a good thing for this to occur. It might be easier to pass unpopular but beneficial economic reforms; but it will also be easier to pass bad legislation or to wind back beneficial reforms. For example, successive governments might re-establish, abolish and re-re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) through double dissolutions.
The risks of policy swings are obvious, but they should not be overstated: the system will probably ensure there would be at least six years between the re-instatement of the ABCC and its abolition at a later joint sitting. Regardless, an increasing prevalence of double D elections won’t address an underlying problem with Australian politics: populism will remain regardless whether it is driven by independents or major parties. This is yet more evidence of the need for organisations such as the CIS in prosecuting the case for reform.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: