Coalition threatens double-dissolution

AAP, with a staff reporter

The opposition is reportedly planning a double-dissolution election within five months of taking office if it wins the election but is blocked from repealing the carbon tax.

News Limited has obtained a working draft of the coalition's environmental plans and a timeline for winding back the laws.

The draft reportedly sets key dates to merge federal departments, outlines a direct action plan to offset or reduce carbon emissions, and includes details about a 35-year Great Barrier Reef protection strategy.

The Australian reported that opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt confirmed the working draft of the plan, which also lays out a timeline for merging federal departments, a direct action plan to offset or reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

According to the plan, on the first day of an Abbott government, the federal environment department would be instructed to prepare legislation to abolish the carbon tax.

A coalition government would bring laws to scrap the carbon tax before parliament on day 30, and if they were not passed, plans would be made for a double-dissolution election in five months, News Ltd reports.

Among other measures in the plan outlined by The Australian, a Coalition government would go ahead with its pledge to merge the climate change and environment departments.

More from Business Spectator


Please login or register to post comments

Comments Policy »
The Liberals may never get their double dissolution election. Carbon tax supporters can block supply instead. See Our Constitution does not require the Senate to acknowledge the wishes of the people expressed at an election. Instead, if the losers of the last election control the Senate, the Constitution allows them to force the winners out of office, or to another election, without the Senate having to face election itself. If we want political stability, we must change the Constitution.
As famously stated by a former PM "unrepresentative swill... "
Maybe it's time to look up the history books on the subject of the Dismissal of the Whitlam Government - a procedure that was turned into a precedent by Fraser's Liberal Party, working with the then Governor General and some legal peanut whose name I can't remember. So, are we sleepwalking into a Constitutional crisis to add to the other symptoms of chaos that may well accompany a change of Government? If we are to get one good laugh out of Abbott it may well be him referring to the Upper House of Parliament as "Unrepresentative Swill", or some similar epiphet, in an echo of Paul Keating's 1992 outburst Those who do not remember history are destined to repeat it - "Wet lettuce" anyone?. What a hoot if the only result of the next election is another one - and then perhaps another one after that, Australian Democracy turned into a game of Musical Chairs. Suggestion for what tune to play anyone? Maybe the theme to Monty Python or at least the tune played for the fish slapping sketch. Turnbull could well be right - It is indeed time to revisit the question of the Republic and of Constitutional change - as they said back in the seventies "It's Time" One thing is for sure about Australia - They're a weird mob! - Deja vu all over again. Line up the beers - all we need to complete the picture is a run of beer strikes
Abbott is going to the people with a very clear message - there is absolutely no ambiguity - that the carbon tax and some associated compensation will be scrapped. I do not recall any situation in the past where a mandate has been clearer. The carbon tax (and mining tax) is a monumental failure of the Labor government and represents the largest breach of trust by any prime minister. It has to go!
I disagree on the carbon tax, but regardless of that issue, the clarity of Abbott's message is simply irrelevant. Our Constitution is quite deliberately structured so that the Senate can ignore the people's wishes as expressed in the House vote. It can reject anything, including supply, without itself being forced to an election. Under our Constitution, democracy is an optional extra. This can harm conservatives just as much as progressives. The solution - for everybody - is Advancing Democracy:
Perhaps someone should read the constitution again: A double dissolution is prohibited within the six months before the expiry of the parliament by effluxion of time; Oh dear.
30 days plus 5 months = 6 months. Oh dear.
Abbott has been very clear for some time that if having been elected to government with a clear mandate to abolish the carbon tax then if his legislation is not passed he will call another election.Realising this the defeated party is unlikely to want to fight another election and will pass the legislation.
I think Tony has misunderstood the Constitution on the subject of Double Dissolution. Abbott could indeed ask the Governor General for such a Double Dissolution provided there were more than six months left before a FUTURE election has to take place. The clause surely does not refer to the immediate past election but to the next one. Effluxion seems to refer to the maximum term of the House of Reps and not some arbitrary and convenient date selected by the Prime Minister. As far as Graham's suggestion is concerned - that a defeated Party would pass legislation that goes against its principled stand on a vital issue I can only say "dream on" I am comforted to see however that implicit in such denial of political reality is a realisation that an incoming Coalition Government could be accompanied by political chaos in many forms. By the time political stability is restored Australian business may well have been felled by fatal blows from many directions - including the incoming Government's supposed supporters. Oh well - so long as there is enough iceleft to put in a dry martini along with an olive. pity about the polar bears, but.
Dry Martinis? NOW you have my attention Phil!! lol ;o)
Labor would get smashed if they blocked the abolition of the carbon and mining taxes. Bring on the double dissolution election.
In the minds of most people, I am not sure if there are any properly thought out election issues. Up till now the whole process has been one of manipulated emotion. I doubt if the average citizen really gives a stuff about either mining or carbon taxes. His or her real concerns are of maintaining and improving their life. I don't think the gulf between rich and poor - which everyone perceives - is in practice, attributed to any particular cluster of micro policies, rather they are attributed to underlying attitudes. Currently, rightly or wrongly - they blame Labor for their negative experiences. Sometimes it is all as if adults still believed in something akin to the Tooth Fairy, with not so much Abbott filling the role but an anti-Gillard abstraction, that will be physically manifested by voting for "the Coalition". I suspect that should there be a change of Government it will be as the result of a strong negative vote against Gillard, rather than a positive vote towards Abbott or his particular silly policies. Popularity polls seem to confirm this to be so. The public would probably like both a third and a fourth option, but they aren't on offer. Negative election polling would point towards the likely result that if there is a shift towards the Coalition in Federal politics, the next negative votes will be against the, by then, unpopular regime - and display themselves in an increase in ALP power in the States. Negativity is not a good way to run a democracy, but we are rather stuck with it in an environment where the worst media monopolies in the First World play the game in that fashion, a sort of see-saw game which only has one aim and result - which is to preserve the inequality - the combination of iniquitous prosperity and harsh, almost inhuman, dispossession - that constitutes our present Australian society - indeed most of world society, in a plethora of nations ruled by right , left, or centre - Tom, Dick, or Harry - Tweedledum or Tweedledee.
One thing I would like to see in the constitution is the ability of voters to have the ability to sack an MP. We should not have to wait for a full term if enough Voters are disatisfied with the honesty or integrity of those we elect. It is not acceptable I believe for a disgraced Politician to be thrown out from their party to say I am now an independent. It should be the voters who decide if they want that person to do so. There should be the ability of Voters to go to the Governor General if there is enough of a majority asking for a new Ballot. This has been high lighted in this Government where self interests of the Government came before what should have been swift investigation. This Government should be ashamed in regards to how they have slowed investigations to Glacial speed in a hope the public forget. Voters need to make those we elect aware that they serve us and that we who they serve should have the ability to petition their sacking. Voters voices should not end at the Ballot box, Politicians if behaving badly should reface the voter if a petition is raised with at least 50% of voters in the seat want it.