The haste with which the Government has returned the Bill on migrant eligibility to the Senate indicates a double dissolution is still an option.
The possibility remains, despite Prime Minister John Howard’s tipping of cold water on double-dissolution hints a week ago by his deputy, Peter Costello. Mr Howard has himself resurrected the hinting process with his statement that the Labor Party was making a huge political mistake in opposing the tougher rules for migrant welfare. Mr Howard did not elaborate, but the hint is that Labor would be enabling a double dissolution trigger.
If it is an option, the Government must be careful in its exercise. Usually, the twice rejected Bills that form the constitutional basis for the double dissolution form little or no part in the ensuing election campaign. Arguably that shows a corruption of the system. It indicates that double dissolutions are use not for the proper constitutional purpose of breaking a legislative impasse between the Houses, but to seize electoral opportunity to extend the life of the Government. In this instance, however, it would be a destructive thing for the election campaign to be fought on the merits of the rejected Bill, because that Bill is about migrant benefits. It would have the potential to unleash more divisive “”debate” on race and migrants.
If Mr Howard sets himself on a course for a double dissolution it would be wise and in the national interest for him to build up several pieces of legislation twice blocked by the Senate, rather than rely on the migrant-benefits Bill alone. Then he could run a campaign on general obstruction, rather than on migrants alone.
Indeed, that strategy would better fit with Mr Howard’s own view of Senate numbers. Mr Howard points out that no government has had control of the Senate since 1981 and that it is unlikely that a government will ever again control the Senate, no matter what its majority in the House, given the nature of the proportional electoral system in the Senate.
If that is the case, it is unlikely after a double dissolution that the Coalition would get a majority in the Senate. However, immediately after a double dissolution, if the Bills that formed the basis of the dissolution are rejected again by the Senate, they are submitted to a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament where the greater numbers of the Government in the House would provide it with a magic moment of majority to get its Bills though. Mr Howard should not waste that moment.
That said, Mr Howard has indicated he intends to govern the full term, and that appears to be the more likely course. In this Mr Howard is more like his predecessor, Paul Keating, than either Bob Hawke or Malcolm Fraser. Mr Hawke and Mr Fraser seized short-term opportunities with early elections on several occasions. In the long term, though, they got a lower return for their electoral investment. Mr Hawke got about nine years of government for four elections (he was entitled to 12); Mr Fraser got about seven years for three elections (he was entitled to nine). Mr Howard much see the merit in extracting the maximum amount of government from each election, even if it means a little legislative compromise.
In the long-term, the double dissolution option does not achieve much. It will not yield a Senate majority. It does not prolong a government’s life. It may get a few Bills though, but the complexity of government a legislation these days is such is that large legislative changes are rarely got right first time and before long there is a need for amendments which again must face a hostile Senate.