Rudd's double dissolution bluff Sunday, November 29, 2009

A double dissolution election, where twice the number of Senate seats are up for grabs, would be more trouble than it is worth to the Labor party.

While control of the Senate is a glittering prize for parties of all persuasions there are also several consolation prizes when it comes to the Upper House. In 2004 the Coalition won a fourth seat in Queensland which, combined with solid results everywhere else and in 2001, tipped them into a majority. Labor strategists are hoping that the next election will smash the Coalition's stranglehold on the Senate and either give Labor a majority of its own (unlikely), or at least reduce the power of the Coalition so that no single party has control. With Labor high in the polls and the Liberal's vote sinking lower and lower, the temptation is there for Labor to pull the double dissolution trigger and hope it translates into a radically improved situation for the government.

Unfortunately for Rudd a double dissolution would not improve Labor's practical position above that of a regular election. On the contrary, a double dissolution holds significant drawbacks for the government.

Running a wide ranging simulation based on the swings recorded in the latest Nielsen poll as applied to the 2007 vote in the Senate, the results under a double dissolution show that Labor would go sideways, the Coalition would go backwards and Greens would emerge as the big winner, leaping from five seats to around eleven, an unprecedented number for a third party. Independent Nick Xenophon could capture two seats in South Australia, but lose the balance of power, surely a negative outcome for the feisty independent.

The practical result of all this is that Coalition would lose its ability to block legislation and the Greens would gain the balance of power on the cross-benches.

However, under a regular half-senate election, which will occur naturally if the government serves out its full term, while the number of seats won by the parties varies in the simulation, the practical results are the same:- the Coalition loses its majority and the Greens gain control of the cross-bench.

To repeat, the practical result from the next Senate election is the same whether it is a half-Senate or full-Senate election.

So with nothing to gain from a double dissolution except breaking the Liberal's hold on the Senate a few months early, the risks of such a course of action are very high. A double dissolution would possibly split the upper house and lower house elections, meaning Australians would have to go to the polls effectively twice as often until they were re-synchronised, surely an unpalatable situation for any major party. A full-Senate election would also crack open the door for micro-parties of a right-wing nature to fluke one or two seats. The prime candidates for an upset being a Pauline Hanson-type candidate in Queensland and a Family First candidate in a state like Victoria or South Australia.

For the hassle, cost and future pains caused by a double dissolution election, the gains for Rudd and the Labor government are simply not worth it. Labor's double dissolution bluff to tame the Senate is just that, a bluff.