The federal government announced earlier this week that they will bring back legislation for a 70% tax increase on pre-mixed alcoholic drinks. The legislation was first defeated a month ago when the government refused to agree to Steven Fielding’s demand for a ban on alcohol advertising during daytime sporting events. The legislation had the support of Senator Xenophon and the Greens after they won smaller concessions.
Media coverage has focused on the possibility for the legislation to be a trigger for a double dissolution election. Is that so?
The constitution requires a three-month gap between the first time a piece of legislation is blocked and second time for the legislation to become a DD trigger. The legislation was first blocked on March 18, so a trigger would only be created if the second blocking took place on or after June 18.
Even though that’s two months away, it’s actually very plausible that the legislation will not be presented before June 18. The next sitting week, the second week of May, will see the presentation of the federal budget, and thus there will not be very much time free for debating alcopops legislation. Following this are two weeks at the end of May when the House of Representatives will be sitting, but the Senate will be in Budget Estimates, so no luck there. The next sitting day will be Monday June 15, and Parliament will then sit for two weeks, and during that period there will be ample opportunity to pass the Alcopops legislation, just over three months since the last opportunity.
Of course, the motivations are unclear. It’s possible that either:
- The Rudd government has decided that the economy will worsen in 2010, thus it will be better to have an early election which will both simplify the Senate balance of power and avoid the worst of the economy, with the economy likely improving by 2012.
- Kevin Rudd hasn’t decided to call an early election, but would like a trigger up his sleeve, to give him more ammunition during future Senate negotiations. It’s better to get a trigger on a piece of legislation you don’t mind to lose, rather than something important like an economic stimulus package or an emissions trading scheme.
- The government doesn’t want an election, but is betting that Turnbull and/or Fielding don’t want an election either more. An early election at the moment would likely see the Opposition lose a further swathe of seats, killing off Turnbull’s leadership. Senator Fielding would almost certainly lose his seat. Of course, that assumes that Steven Fielding has some sort of master plan and isn’t simply coming up with his plans as he goes along.
The likeliest outcome of a double dissolution would be the ALP gaining a bunch of House of Representatives seats, and the Greens taking complete control of the Senate balance of power. The Greens would likely win at least seven seats, while Senator Fielding would be likely defeated. While Xenophon would be re-elected, and could even bring in a running mate, he would likely be irrelevant to Senate power politics.
Of course, it’s worth remembering that, in the three early elections conducted in the last year, conservative oppositions all out-performed the pre-campaign expectations, and a seemingly pointless and petty early election on a minor issue like alcopops taxation could see the voters turn on Rudd.
But the legislation has to be EXACTLY the same as was previously entered for it to count, right? It sounds like that’s a bigger issue than the 3 months thing. I could be wrong, though…
I’m inclined to think that it’d be an unwise move by Rudd to an alcopops trigger, if he so pushed for it, to use it as any more than a threat.
Promising to raise the cost of people’s booze is not an issue that’s going to win you votes, and if the moral panic around young women drinkers couldn’t even sway Steve Fielding, it obviously ain’t going down too well out there in the public, and would be more likely to just look petty and erratic. He’d still win, of course, but I have a feeling he’d be more likely to lose seats rather than gain ’em.
I don’t think alcopops, if used as a trigger, would actually play a big role in the campaign.
The idea is too say “We are facing Senate obstruction, the Opposition is blocking our attempts to deal with the financial crisis as well as blocking parts of the budget – the latest attempt being an important health measure applauded by health and advocacy groups”.
I don’t the government is going to use Alcopops as a double dissolution election trigger. If the elections in WA, NT and QLD tought the Labor Party anything it’s that people don’t like early elections that are based around stupid reasons, which is what alcopops is. I think Labor is re-introducing this legislation with the possibility of it as a trigger to try to pressure Fielding and the Libs to pass it in turn re-enforcing their own power within the Senate. Forcing either of these two to vote for this legislation under the threat of a DD would be a big win for Labor and I think that is what they are aiming for.
Comments are closed.