Prime Minister John Howard has been talking election talk. He knows that if he wants his Wik legislation through he must have a double dissolution election between July 4 and October 24 the only practicable and permissible time frame, under constitutional requirments that cry out for reform.
The Constitution will not permit a double dissolution within six months of an ordinary election being due which itself is three years from the first sitting of the House of Rpresentatives after the previous election (April 30). After a double dissolution, the Constitution backdates senators terms to the previous July 1, so the election must be after this July 1 if the senators are not to lose almost a year of their term and then force the subsequent House term to truncated by almost a year if it is to be held in conjunction with the next half senate election. And under electoral law elections must be held on a Saturday.
In short, a double dissolution election must be an early election. Its only advantage from Mr Howard’s point of view is that after it (if he wins) he can put his Wik legislation to a joint sitting of both Houses where it presumably will be passed because his extra numbers in the House of Representationves will presumably more than off-set any deficit he has in the Senate.
The disadvantages, on the other hand, from both Mr Howard’s and the nation’s point of view are greatly outweighed by this. For a start the legislation even if passed is likely to be challenged in the High Court and may be at least partially struck down, so the effort would have been at least partially in vain.
Secondly, at the double dissolution the whole Senate goes to the polls, that is 12 senators from each state, instead of the usual half Senate election in which only six senators from each state face the people. When 12 senators are up for election, the quota of votes needed for election is a mere 7.7 per cent, rather than the usual 14.3 per cent. This gives an greater opportunity for fringe groups, such as Paulin Hanson’s One Nation Party and the Shooters Party, to get seats. Worse, from Mr Howard’s point of view, it takes 46.2 per cent of the vote for a major party to secure six seats in a state, compared to only 42.9 per cent in successive half-senate elections. The Coaltion has got six senators in each state except Tasmania now. At a double dissolution, it cannot possibly retain this result. Three or four of its senators will lose their seats. Appropriately, one is likely to be a NSW National Party senator, the party that supports the Wik legislation most and which presumably should make the most sacrifice for it.
Thirdly, a double dissolution lets Labor of the hook. In 1996 it performed dismally in the Senate, returning only two senators in each state. Normally, Labor would have to carry that burden for six years. A double dissolution would wipe the slate clean for Labor.
The Democrats and Greens might remain much as they are. The Democrats could have expected to pick up extra senators if there was to be an ordinary half-Senate election.
In short, Mr Howard would be trading a Senate where the Coalition needs only two other senators to get Bills through for six years of being in substantial minority. All for just four elements of the Wik legislation,when his other six elements have been agreed to.
Worse still, Mr Howard could plunge the country into a race election. He might say the Coalition would not engage in a race election and would not use race as a factor. But the electoral equation put above show it in a different light. It shows that Mr Howard is willing to put the passing of four elements of the Wik legislation, which substantially take away existing rights from indigenous people, as more important than the fate of four or five of his Coalition senators and more important than the fate of the Coalition’s long-term ability to deal with the Senate. Thos dealings will include things like tax reform and other economic measures. If Mr Howard does go to a double dissolution, it seems he is willing to put a very high price indeed on taking away indigenous rights. Mr Howard may not see that as racist, but others inevitably will. An election called because that legislation was rejected twice by the Senate will be a central focus of the campaign and will inevitably invite accusations of racism, whether well-founded or not. That will be a race election. Mr Howard should avoid it.
The other two pieces of legislation rejected twice by the Senate are not significant enough to outweigh the Wik legislation (in which the Government has put so much store) as the core election matter. Those pieces of legislation are some public-service industrial relations changes and an exemption for small business from the unfair dismissal law.
The only possible way for Mr Howard to justify a double dissolution would be to put a whole range of other maters, particularly tax reform, inthe same package. But it seems that time has run out for that. By the time any new measures are rejected twice by the Senate, the October 24 deadline will have arrived.
Mr Howard’s dilemma — whether to sacrifice several Coalition senators in a double dissolution — highlights some constitutional weaknesses which should be fixed. Why should a double dissolution be prohibited in the six months before an ordinary election is due, if that is going to be the only way to resolve impasses between the houses? Why are senators’ terms subsequently back-dated and shortened instead of extended so that subsequent House elections can run a full term and be held simultaneously with the next half-Senate election?
Of more import, why should it be necessary to have a double dissolution at all. Surely, if the Howard Government is returned after an ordinary election in which Wik and other twice rejected election has been on the table, that legislation should become law on its passing in the House alone after the election.