What Could Trigger a Federal Election
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
What could trigger a federal election by Phillip Coorey Just over a year ago, Britain's Conservative government came close to defeat when a gamble by Prime Minister Theresa May to call an early election backfired. May, who had taken over from David Cameron, sought a fresh five-year term in the belief that strong opinion polls would hand her a decisive victory over Labour's Jeremy Corbyn and give the government clear air to preside over Britain's exit from the European Union. The voters did not appreciate another election just two years into a new term and for this reason, among others, May was punished and her government reduced to a minority. Privately, Malcolm Turnbull cites May's disaster as one of the reasons he believes his government should leave it until next year before calling the election. Because Turnbull held the last election, a double dissolution, on July 2, 2016, this term of Parliament was always going to be shortish. That is because half the Senators – those who received three-year terms at the 2016 poll – need to face an election, the results be counted and those chosen to be in their seats, all before July 1, 2019. And that means the government could never go the full three years this term. Still, Turnbull believes that if he goes early and holds the next election before Christmas, the government will be marked down for it. Additionally, the government believes it needs as much time as possible to close the gap on Labor in the polls, buttressed by an improving economic outlook. Because Turnbull held the last election, a double dissolution, on July 2, 2016, this term of Parliament was always going to be shortish. Alex Ellinghausen Furthermore, the Liberals say their research shows the longer Bill Shorten remains opposition leader, the more they can diminish him in the eyes of voters. The majority view around the cabinet table is to wait until after the NSW state election on March 23. "The political cemeteries of the world are littered with people who tried to capitalise on signs of momentum and fell flat," said one source who mentioned May as an example of what not to do. So, while the overwhelming consensus is to go full term, in reality, a government calls an election when it believes it has the best chance of winning. If circumstances change and a spring poll this year suddenly appears the better option, the government will take it and, if necessary, manufacture reasons for doing so. David Rowe If circumstances change and a spring poll this year suddenly appears the better option, the government will take it and, if necessary, manufacture reasons for doing so. And that is why the next month-and-a-half looms as critical to decision making. After six weeks of doing not much other than spending two weeks lollygagging in estimates hearings, the Senate, along with the House of Representatives, resumes next week for a fortnight before taking another six-week break. The government's two policy centrepieces, the $144 billion in income tax cuts and the $35 billion remainder of its company tax cuts, are priorities to be put to the Senate. At this stage, the income tax cuts stand a better chance of being passed than the company tax cuts. Alex Ellinghausen Neither is supported in totality – or at all – by Labor or the Greens, meaning the government needs the crossbench. At this stage, the income tax cuts stand a better chance of being passed than the company tax cuts. Previously, this government has not put legislation to the Senate until it had the numbers. The rhetoric leading up to next fortnight indicates the government will put them up regardless. If one or both were defeated, it would a least give the government arguments on election timing. For example, should it do well on super Saturday on July 28 by pinching Longman and/or Braddon off Labor, the government could be sorely tempted to ride the momentum and call a spring election, especially if Labor started self-destructing over its leadership. As justification for breaking its stated pledge to hold an election next year, the government could argue that its economic agenda was being blocked, that the nation was in peril and fresh mandate was needed. Alex Ellinghausen As justification for breaking its stated pledge to hold an election next year, the government could argue that its economic agenda was being blocked, that the nation was in peril and fresh mandate was needed. Inadvertently or otherwise, Treasurer Scott Morrison road-tested arguments last week when the national accounts recorded strong growth for the March quarter. The income tax cuts, he said, were vital to boost modest household consumption while the company tax cuts were needed to sustain impressive investment in the non- mining sector. Apart from going early, such a strategy would have risks given the company tax cuts are polarising at best, as are the third stage of the income tax cuts given their cost and focus on high income earners. It remains nothing more than theory at this stage. It's all about creating options. Given events this week in which Brian Burston quit One Nation, Turnbull could bolster his case for an election by arguing it was time to clean up the rabble that is now masquerading as a Senate. The decision to call a double dissolution two years ago negated the impact of reforms designed to stop micro parties gaming the preference system and securing seats with minuscule first preference votes. Consequently, when the current Senate term started on July 1, 2016, there were 11 Senate crossbenchers – four One Nation senators, three Nick Xenophon Team senators and individual senators Jacqui Lambie, David Leyonhjelm, Derryn Hinch, and Bob Day. In less than two years, 16 of the 76 senators elected on July 2, 2016 have disappeared. That's just over one in five. Given events this week in which Brian Burston quit One Nation, Turnbull could bolster his case for an election by arguing it was time to clean up the rabble that is now masquerading as a Senate. Alex Ellinghausen Five have retired, one has resigned, and 10 have been dismissed for various breaches of section 44 of the constitution. As a consequence of the upheaval, the crossbench bears no resemblance to what it was. Just three – Leyonhjelm, Hinch and Pauline Hanson – represent the party banner under which they ran in 2016. Fraser Anning, who replaced One Nation's Malcolm Roberts, has joined Bob Katter's party; Steve Martin, who replaced Lambie, has joined the Nationals; Lucy Gichuhi replaced Family First's Bob Day but is now a Liberal; Cory Bernardi defected from the Liberals to form his own party; Tim Storer, who replaced the NXT's Sky Kakoschke-Moore, is an independent, as is Burston, and the NXT's Stirling Griff and Rex Patrickhave rebadged themselves the Centre Alliance. Apart from Hanson and her sole surviving senator Peter Georgiou – himself a replacement for the disqualified Rod Culleton – Hinch and Leyonhjelm are the only crossbenchers who have remained faithful to the wishes of the voters. Yet they are on three-year terms and have little chance of being re-elected given the size of the quota needed for what will be a half-Senate election. Such chaos may be entertaining and make for good news copy but the Senate has moved from unrepresentative swill to unrepresentative unrepresentatives making decisions that affect people's lives. Phillip Coorey is The Australian Financial Review's political editor. .