• Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull names a date for an early, double dissolution election
    15 replies, posted
[quote]Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has strengthened the chances of an early election, with both houses recalled next month to debate a potential double dissolution trigger. Mr Turnbull will bring back both houses of Parliament for an extraordinary sitting in April to deal with industrial relations legislation, and says he will call a double dissolution election to be held on July 2 if the bills are not passed.[/quote] Read more at [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-21/malcolm-turnbull-brings-budget-forward-threatens-election/7262898[/url] No guarantee that an early election will happen; if the Senate passes the ABCC legislation, then a normal election will happen towards the end of the year instead. If a double dissolution election happens, the House and all 76 Senators will face re-election, rather than just the House and 40 Senators. The part about the Senate is significant, as voting reform passed last week would mean that 7 of the 8 independent/micro-party Senators are unlikely to be re-elected. Which is actually a win for democracy, considering how they were elected in the first place.
Oh yeah, great, make it harder for the smaller parties. Just what we don't need, some variety in the senate.
He has announced a sitting of the upper house for the 18th of April - if the ABCC legislation doesn't pass, then Turnbull with have justification to go to the Governor General and request that both houses be dissolved. This is the most critical part of the article.
AEC has sent out emails about the next federal election. They think it's happening sooner rather than later.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;49975313]He has announced a sitting of the upper house for the 18th of April - if the ABCC legislation doesn't pass, then Turnbull with have justification to go to the Governor General and request that both houses be dissolved. This is the most critical part of the article.[/QUOTE] True, but I find it interesting they have announced it just after making the Senate changes.
[QUOTE=download;49975302]Oh yeah, great, make it harder for the smaller parties. Just what we don't need, some variety in the senate.[/QUOTE] Because yes, it's apparently better to have micro-party Senators (like Ricky Muir who only received [b]0.51%[/b] of first preferences) elected thanks to backroom preference deals and shady crafting of the above-the-line voting tickets, so that the system could be manipulated to the extent of him reaching the 14.3% quota from that record-low primary vote. Only one in 200 people wanted to elect a Senator from the 'Motoring Enthusiasts Party'. Now he's one of the 12 Senators from his state. That's not right.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;49975313]He has announced a sitting of the upper house for the 18th of April - if the ABCC legislation doesn't pass, then Turnbull with have justification to go to the Governor General and request that both houses be dissolved. This is the most critical part of the article.[/QUOTE] Everything you wrote was already in the two paragraphs quoted in the OP.
[QUOTE=sb27;49975325]Because yes, it's apparently better to have micro-party Senators (like Ricky Muir who only received [b]0.51%[/b] of first preferences) elected thanks to backroom preference deals and shady crafting of the above-the-line voting tickets, so that the system could be manipulated to the extent of him reaching the 14.3% quota from that record-low primary vote. Only one in 200 people wanted to elect a Senator from the 'Motoring Enthusiasts Party'. Now he's one of the 12 Senators from his state. That's not right.[/QUOTE] If you're too stupid to know the preferences of the party your voting for then its your own fucking fault. Toughen up princess.
[QUOTE=download;49975341]If you're too stupid to know the preferences of the party your voting for then its your own fucking fault. Toughen up princess.[/QUOTE] Everyone can guess where the first twelve preferences of at least the major party tickets will go. No one can be expected to remember the order of the other ~90 preferences on each ticket, especially for the micro-party tickets. And it's those late preferences which get those micro-party Senators elected from less than 1% of the primary vote. Why do you dislike accountability and democracy? Why do you have to be so rude as well?
[QUOTE=sb27;49975340]Everything you wrote was already in the two paragraphs quoted in the OP.[/QUOTE] I was just emphasizing the most pivotal part of this situation, the rest is purely contingent.
It's been a while since parliament was recalled for such an event. This would also push up the release of the federal budget wouldn't it? I honestly think that by passing the senate voting changes, trying to force through the ABCC & registered organisations bill again, after being rejected twice, the coalition has much to lose. Many people in the construction sector & most of the workforce still remember WorkChoices. Many [I][U][B]believe[/B][/U][/I] that bill is a reinterpretation of that in which is why it probably will not pass and we'll be heading to an early election. At the same time people want to try and eliminate corruption, even though it's widely practised and is still a prevalent issue and probably won't go away. Yes the senate voting changes were needed and misinterpreted by the public, but the thing is, preference deals done by branch members / candidates which go against the will of the voting public is wrong. It just means candidates & incumbents will have to work harder to be elected (or re-elected.) This is going to get messy.
[QUOTE=download;49975302]Oh yeah, great, make it harder for the smaller parties. Just what we don't need, some variety in the senate.[/QUOTE] It don't matter really because if you vote for a small party by law they have to give theses votes if they don't get in to another party.
Someone mind giving a little background on this?
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;49975819]Someone mind giving a little background on this?[/QUOTE] There have been issues with trade union corruption over the past few years, such as misuse of union funds and thuggery and violence committed by union members. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union in particular has been in the spotlight. The government is contemplating bringing back the office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, an independent authority, to monitor workplace relations. Of course, parties such as Labor don't like these kinds of things as they perceive them as an attack on workers. But you would expect that from Labor given that the CFMEU are one of Labor's biggest donors. If legislation twice fails to pass both the House and Senate over a three month period, the Prime Minister can consider the nuclear option of dissolving both the House and the Senate, having all MPs and Senators face immediate re-election. Some are saying that this double dissolution threat isn't necessarily because of the ABCC legislation failing to be passed (and the government has already had other double dissolution 'triggers'), but because the government doesn't want to have to deal with an unruly Senate crossbench full of micro-parties. Hence voting reform for the Senate, which some perceive as ill-intentioned but nonetheless will lead to a more-democratic Senate composition. [editline]21 January 2016[/editline] The problem with the way the Senate has been elected in the past is with Australia's implementation of the Single Transferable Vote. As STV requires voters to preference most of the candidates for their vote to not be 'wasted', it makes sense for it to be mandated that voters should preference at least 90% of the candidates, unless their vote not be counted. But Senate elections typically have around 100 candidates on the ballot. Yes, a hundred. It's unrealistic to expect voters to sequentially number a hundred boxes without making more than the three allowed number of mistakes. Look at this; it's a ballot paper: [img]http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201309/r1169645_14842965.JPG[/img] So voters instead typically choose one of the 'above-the-line' boxes, which is effectively automatically filling out every below-the-line box. Meaning that the order of preferences for the tickets are left in control of the parties and candidates. This has led to micro-party candidates working out complex preference deals, to go from 0.5% of first preference votes up to an electoral quota (14.3% for states, 33% for territories). The reform, which was passed last week, will allow voters to use preferential voting when voting above-the-line (so each above-the-line box preferences the six candidates below that box), instead of only being allowed to vote for a single ticket (which fills out preferences for every candidate on the ballot) as is what's happened until now. The result: Less micro-parties (such as the Motoring Enthusiasts, Sports Party, Family First, Liberal Democats etc); more accountability.
i.e. "I'm too lazy to find out who the party I'm voting for preferences too and want the government to bail me out".
[QUOTE=download;49975891]i.e. "I'm too lazy to find out who the party I'm voting for preferences too and want the government to bail me out".[/QUOTE] What is wrong with you? All you do is shit post. You don't ever post any logical retorts, you only resort to name calling and ad-hominems. And as I have said above, it's not the immediate preferences that are the issue, it's every other preference working with those complex backroom preference deals. Why do you hate democracy? Why would you rather only be able to vote for one above-the-line ticket, and have your vote possibly end up electing someone from a party such as One Nation, instead of say put a #1 against party A, #2 against party B, #3 against party C and so on? What don't you like about that alternative?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.