Home Articles Forum Wiki Poll Garden Contact

 
 
 
  
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

  Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Federal Politics › Where's the double dissolution Tony?
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
Where's the double dissolution Tony? (Read 4063 times)
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #30 - Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:21am  
Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:27am:
Either way, I remember Rudd having TWO separate DD triggers and he used neither and his electoral position was quite positive.  Bob Hawke used a DD in 1984 and lost much of his majority.  I think it spooked further PMs from using a DD except in dire situations of which this most definitely is not one.

1987 was DD, not 1984.
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
 
skippy.
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20882
Gender: male
Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #31 - Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:22am  
Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:02am:
skippy. wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:40am:
But the basher claimed he would go to a DD if he didn't get his way, he didn't say he would wait until he had a suckhole senate, did he lie?
I can't remember Rudd stamping his feet and saying he would go to a DD if he didn't get his way, got a link B& B?


Your invective and shallow responses indicate that history and politics are not things you really understand. I would suggest that most people in the country would not expect him to simply rush off to a DD when a simpler solution was around the corner. And this is why Abbott is PM while you are...

I accept your surrender, you obviously have no answer when it is so obvious he lied,thanks.
Back to top
 
  freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #32 - Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:34am  
Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:08am:
King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 9:58am:
buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:27am:
crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm:
He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one.






He'd be a FOOL to go for one - given his government's unprecedented
plummet in the polls
- THIS early in the picture

Mind YOU - I'm hoping he MAY have just enough
blue-blood ARROGANCE
to go for it







Unprecedented??? Have you seem the ALP's plummets in the polls when in government?

Now "that's" a plummet.... Roll Eyes


The ALP in WA have dropped to 29% while the Libs have risen to 44%.

Very different results in polling when an election is imminent as opposed to an election in 2.5 years time.

What polling results? A link would be helpful. I can't find any polling results online with these numbers, especially on Poll Bludger.
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
 
Bread and Butter
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 390
Gender: female
Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #33 - Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:39am  
Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:15am:
Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:00am:
Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:39am:
Quote:
Do you know if the bills were identical both times because they have to be for a DD.


No, I don't.

Quote:
There has been no media reporting on having a DD trigger so it seems doubtful.  Or perhaps they understand the common-sense  attitude of questioning why any sane PM would go to a DD just a few months before a probably friendly senate?


I have no idea how you conclude the Senate (after this weekend) is going to be more Abbott friendly on carbon tax repeal post July 1, given PUP (holding control there) has already made it quite plain there will be no repeal unless that is retrospective.

Quote:
And I think I read somewhere that the complexities of senate voting means that a DD before July 1 is either not constitutional or has significant problems.  Do you know what they are?


I am aware of nothing (apart from the obvious need for a trigger) which prevents Abbott going before July 1.


Recent polling shows PUP as unlikely to win a WA senate seat.  Their polling has dropped badly and if Palmer has any political nous at all - which is doubtful - he would sense that people are not happy with him threatening to block everything - especially the Carbon Tax Repeal - that is not in his personal financial favour.  The new senate will vote to repeal the DD and if Palmer is as stupid and ignorant as I suspect and votes to reject the repeal, the Abbott has his DD trigger and despite what polls are saying, would win.

People hate the Carbon tax and the even more strongly hate parties and senators that seek to block the clearly expressed will of the people.  Palmer will find himself out of the lower house and no-one in the upper house.

Palmers dilemma is quite simple but I suspect will escape him as subtle things usually do. If he refuses to repeal, he will not get his money back and will continue to pay the tax for the foreseeable future. If he repeals, he will not get his money back. If Abbott goes to a DD, there are two outcomes: Abbott wins and the CT is repealed, he doesn't get his refund. If Labor wins the CT wont be repealed.

Now if you were palmer wouldn't you see that there is no option for a refund - ever - and that his only choice is to repeal or not repeal.


I don't know where you get your news from but this suggests you are wrong.

Click here.

PUP went to the Sept 2013 with a retrospective repeal of the carbon tax as part of its platform.  PUP (with that Transport bloke) already has the balance of power in the Senate post July 1, and the outcome of this weekend's re-run is not going to change that.


And if you think voters who voted for PUP knew of this policy or even cared than I will just snigger and move on.

My post was about likely outcomes and you seemed to not understand that.  Abbott will not under any circumstances repeal the CT retrospectively.  It would be a political disaster and a legislative and practical nightmare. It quite simply wont happen and to pretend otherwise is naïve in the extreme.

That leaves Palmer with two choice. Continue to pay the Carbon tax or not.  While I have a low opinion of Palmers ethics  - as I do of all bullies - his options are few.

And if it gets taken to a DD the outcome for ABbott is unknown but not for PUP.  they will disappear faster than One Nation.

Now if you were Palmer, what would you do?  the right thing for the country or the right thing for YOU?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bread and Butter
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 390
Gender: female
Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #34 - Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:40am  
Bam wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:34am:
Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:08am:
King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 9:58am:
buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:27am:
crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm:
He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one.






He'd be a FOOL to go for one - given his government's unprecedented
plummet in the polls
- THIS early in the picture

Mind YOU - I'm hoping he MAY have just enough
blue-blood ARROGANCE
to go for it







Unprecedented??? Have you seem the ALP's plummets in the polls when in government?

Now "that's" a plummet.... Roll Eyes


The ALP in WA have dropped to 29% while the Libs have risen to 44%.

Very different results in polling when an election is imminent as opposed to an election in 2.5 years time.

What polling results? A link would be helpful. I can't find any polling results online with these numbers, especially on Poll Bludger.


Reported yesterday. It might have been Newspoll and I think I read it in Business Spectator.  Libs up, Labor down by a mile and Greens up slightly and others - including PUP - getting hammered.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Armchair_Politician
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 25983
Gender: male
Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #35 - Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:40am  
Doctor Jolly wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 9:07am:
Grendel wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:47am:
Another totally bogus topic...


There will be no DD unless they can't get their legislation passed.
Well guess what dummies, they won't know about that until after the Senate is reconfigured later in the year.
So give it up until then eh. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


The DD promise was given regardless of the Senate reconfiguration.

Like running away from the house last year, he is a coward of the highest order.


He can't call a DD yet, you halfwit! The conditions for such a trigger have not been met!  Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bread and Butter
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 390
Gender: female
Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #36 - Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:41am  
Bam wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:21am:
Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:27am:
Either way, I remember Rudd having TWO separate DD triggers and he used neither and his electoral position was quite positive.  Bob Hawke used a DD in 1984 and lost much of his majority.  I think it spooked further PMs from using a DD except in dire situations of which this most definitely is not one.

1987 was DD, not 1984.


Yes, you are correct. a bit of a brain melt there!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bread and Butter
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 390
Gender: female
Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #37 - Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:42am  
Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:40am:
Doctor Jolly wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 9:07am:
Grendel wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:47am:
Another totally bogus topic...


There will be no DD unless they can't get their legislation passed.
Well guess what dummies, they won't know about that until after the Senate is reconfigured later in the year.
So give it up until then eh. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


The DD promise was given regardless of the Senate reconfiguration.

Like running away from the house last year, he is a coward of the highest order.


He can't call a DD yet, you halfwit! The conditions for such a trigger have not been met!  Roll Eyes


I am confused on this issue as some are saying it has been met and yet Ive heard not one single word from the media on it, suggesting that you are right.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Armchair_Politician
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 25983
Gender: male
Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #38 - Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:50am  
Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:42am:
Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:40am:
Doctor Jolly wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 9:07am:
Grendel wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:47am:
Another totally bogus topic...


There will be no DD unless they can't get their legislation passed.
Well guess what dummies, they won't know about that until after the Senate is reconfigured later in the year.
So give it up until then eh. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


The DD promise was given regardless of the Senate reconfiguration.

Like running away from the house last year, he is a coward of the highest order.


He can't call a DD yet, you halfwit! The conditions for such a trigger have not been met!  Roll Eyes


I am confused on this issue as some are saying it has been met and yet Ive heard not one single word from the media on it, suggesting that you are right.


The legislation to repeal the carbon tax was defeated in the Senate recently. Abbott must now wait for THREE MONTHS before he can reintroduce that legislation. He cannot reintroduce it in less than three months and by the time three months has gone by, the new Senate will probably be sitting. Regardless, if it is rejected a second time THEN he has the trigger required to call a DD. This nonsense about him being a coward for not calling a DD, etc is absurd in the extreme because the Constitution will not let him even if he wants to right now. So those of you wetting your panties over this, just grow a brain and wait three months, okay? All you're doing is confirming what colossal asshats you lot are!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bread and Butter
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 390
Gender: female
Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #39 - Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:57am  
Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:21am:
Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:07am:
Bam wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:37am:
crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm:
He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. With a new senate about to be sworn in around 3 months from now it is extremely unlikely that the Governor General will grant a dissolution of parliament.

I doubt Abbott would even consider calling a DD election until he's tried getting the legislation through the new Senate. I also agree that the GG may decline a request for a DD election if a new Senate has yet to take their seats.

Abbott insists on demanding his way or nothing. All too often he's going to get nothing. He should learn to negotiate, then he may not get all of what he wants but he may get some of what he wants.

Australians won't long tolerate a Prime Minister that cannot negotiate.


Regardless of all the carry-on, the Constitution requires the legislation to be presented twice, 90 days apart.  Until that has happened - in about 80 days time - the issue is moot.  And from a practical standpoint, why would anyone in their right mind call a DD election literally days before a new and more friendly senate took its seat?

There seems to a pretty hysterical response by some on here to a situation that has not even arisen yet about an action that the voters themselves support!


The trigger can be pulled now, unless, of course, Abbott did not re-present this one last month.

Click here.


A correction Aussie.  your reference was to just ONE bill, not the full CT repeal bills. So I return to my original point that the constitutional requirements for a DD do not exists and will not until mid June, mere weeks before the new senate.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #40 - Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:59am  
Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:50am:
The legislation to repeal the carbon tax was defeated in the Senate recently.

For the second time, IIRC; if so, Abbott has a DD trigger.

The point is moot though because he won't use it. Not with a new Senate incoming, and not when he's behind in the 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: 25983
Gender: male
Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #41 - Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:59am  
Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:57am:
Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:21am:
Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:07am:
Bam wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:37am:
crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm:
He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. With a new senate about to be sworn in around 3 months from now it is extremely unlikely that the Governor General will grant a dissolution of parliament.

I doubt Abbott would even consider calling a DD election until he's tried getting the legislation through the new Senate. I also agree that the GG may decline a request for a DD election if a new Senate has yet to take their seats.

Abbott insists on demanding his way or nothing. All too often he's going to get nothing. He should learn to negotiate, then he may not get all of what he wants but he may get some of what he wants.

Australians won't long tolerate a Prime Minister that cannot negotiate.


Regardless of all the carry-on, the Constitution requires the legislation to be presented twice, 90 days apart.  Until that has happened - in about 80 days time - the issue is moot.  And from a practical standpoint, why would anyone in their right mind call a DD election literally days before a new and more friendly senate took its seat?

There seems to a pretty hysterical response by some on here to a situation that has not even arisen yet about an action that the voters themselves support!


The trigger can be pulled now, unless, of course, Abbott did not re-present this one last month.

Click here.


A correction Aussie.  your reference was to just ONE bill, not the full CT repeal bills. So I return to my original point that the constitutional requirements for a DD do not exists and will not until mid June, mere weeks before the new senate.


Aussie is a legend at being wrong - a true master!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Armchair_Politician
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 25983
Gender: male
Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #42 - Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:04pm  
Bam wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:59am:
Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:50am:
The legislation to repeal the carbon tax was defeated in the Senate recently.

For the second time, IIRC; if so, Abbott has a DD trigger.

The point is moot though because he won't use it. Not with a new Senate incoming, and not when he's behind in the polls.


It has to be rejected TWICE, not ONCE!


The double dissolution provision comes into play if the Senate and House twice fail to agree on a piece of legislation (in section 57 called "a proposed law", and commonly referred to as a "trigger"). The government may use this trigger (or any number of triggers) to recommend the Governor-General dissolve the House and the entire Senate – pursuant to section 57 of the Constitution – and issue writs for an election in which every seat in the Parliament is contested.

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 similar provision for resolving deadlocks with respect to bills that have originated in the Senate and are blocked in the House of Representatives.

Though the Constitution refers to the Governor-General doing certain things, it had until the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis been believed that convention required the Governor-General to act only on the advice of the Prime Minister. However, as the 1975 constitutional crisis demonstrated, the Governor-General is not compelled to follow the Prime Minister's advice. In these cases, he or she must be personally satisfied that the conditions specified in the Constitution apply, and is entitled to seek additional information or advice before coming to a decision.


None of the criteria have been met, therefore Abbott has NO trigger by which to call a DD!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bread and Butter
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 390
Gender: female
Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #43 - Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:07pm  
Bam wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:59am:
Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:50am:
The legislation to repeal the carbon tax was defeated in the Senate recently.

For the second time, IIRC; if so, Abbott has a DD trigger.

The point is moot though because he won't use it. Not with a new Senate incoming, and not when he's behind in the polls.


I would like you to cite an authoritative reference to this claim. From my reading, the recent repeal was the first time the group of CT bills had been presented and last years was simply the CEFC bill. Now if I am wrong then please cite evidence of that.  The complete silence of the media on all sides about this supposed DD does tend to support my position that it does not yet exist.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bread and Butter
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 390
Gender: female
Re: Where's the double dissolution Tony?
Reply #44 - Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:09pm  
Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:04pm:
Bam wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:59am:
Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:50am:
The legislation to repeal the carbon tax was defeated in the Senate recently.

For the second time, IIRC; if so, Abbott has a DD trigger.

The point is moot though because he won't use it. Not with a new Senate incoming, and not when he's behind in the polls.


It has to be rejected TWICE, not ONCE!


The double dissolution provision comes into play if the Senate and House twice fail to agree on a piece of legislation (in section 57 called "a proposed law", and commonly referred to as a "trigger"). The government may use this trigger (or any number of triggers) to recommend the Governor-General dissolve the House and the entire Senate – pursuant to section 57 of the Constitution – and issue writs for an election in which every seat in the Parliament is contested.

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 similar provision for resolving deadlocks with respect to bills that have originated in the Senate and are blocked in the House of Representatives.

Though the Constitution refers to the Governor-General doing certain things, it had until the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis been believed that convention required the Governor-General to act only on the advice of the Prime Minister. However, as the 1975 constitutional crisis demonstrated, the Governor-General is not compelled to follow the Prime Minister's advice. In these cases, he or she must be personally satisfied that the conditions specified in the Constitution apply, and is entitled to seek additional information or advice before coming to a decision.


None of the criteria have been met, therefore Abbott has NO trigger by which to call a DD!


Your post is generally right but the GG still acts on the PMs advice and on no other.  the 1975 example was very different and extrapolating from that is fraught with difficulty.  a constitutionally valid DD would not be rejected by the GG under any conceivable circumstances.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
 
 

  « Forum ‹ Board Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge