Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t come across as “crash or crash through” politician. In fact, after his decisive coup against Tony Abbott, he has been more like the Muddleheaded Wombat, particularly in relation to tax policy.
Now he is threatening to call a double dissolution over the stalled legislation to set up a building industry watchdog, not something you would not normally die in a ditch for. Ostensibly, a double dissolution would bring about joint sitting of the upper and lower Houses of Parliament where the government would have a majority to pass stalled legislation.
in preparation for this he has introduced and passed legislation that changes Senate voting patterns, with the aim of cleaning out a recalcitrant cross bench.
But his plan to return to government with the majority in both houses is fraught with risk and far from a certainty.
The first risk is that if the trends in the opinion polls continue until the election, whenever it is held, is a very good chance he will not win it or may even be faced with a Julia Gillard scenario of a hung parliament in the lower house.
But the outcome of the Senate election is going to be even more fraught with risk.
The first problem is that with the changed Senate voting processes, the most important of which is that it is now possible to vote below the line and only have to number 12 boxes rather than the 100+ of previous years. There was a very real possibility that the voting patterns under this new system will be highly unpredictable and not produce the results that previous Senate elections have produced, particularly in assuring the election of candidates listed high on the how-to-vote cards.
One of the outcomes of the changes to Senate voting and voters not following how to vote cards is that some senators, whose election was normally assured by their position on the how to vote card, may not be elected. It may be that senators such as Cory Bernardi will find re-election very difficult.
Electors may choose to bypass the how-to-vote cards of the major parties and allocate their minimum 12 votes in quite different ways. If the 25% who do not vote for the major parties vote in a consistent pattern, some 25%, or around 20 senators, maybe elected from the minor parties and independents.
This is a worst-case scenario for any government and is probably unlikely to play out. However, if voters limit their below the line choices to 12 and keep their votes tight, it is likely that the number of independent senators will increase.
So there is a distinct possibility that there may be more Rather than fewer independent crossbenchers than there are present and there is no guarantee they will be any more tractable.
Another problem for the Turnbull government, if re-elected, is that three of the current crossbench, Madigan, Day and Leyonhjelm, who generally supported the Government, are unlikely to be re-elected. Dio Wang will not be re-elected, bringing the potential total of wild cards to four. There is no guarantee that they will be replaced by Senators who will support the government.
Once were Senators?
Nick Xenonhon will certainly be returned and may also bring a friend from South Australia. Jackie Lambie is probably a shoo-in in Tasmania and Glen Lazarus is in with a chance in Queensland.
And then there’s the accidental senator Ricky Muir who may get the “decent bloke” vote in Victoria and be returned.
Ricky Muir has grown in stature since his election.
So, if Malcolm Turnbull has made a seriously bad mistake in the timing of his double dissolution, his popularity continues to decline and he loses control of both houses, the Liberal party will have a conniption fit and probably return Tony Abbott to lead them in opposition.
Expect his revenge to be swift and bloody.
Tim Haslett's Blog 