Talk:Double dissolution

Triggers

It may be an idea to list the bills that were the triggers for each dissolution. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea, TRP. I don't know how your post escaped my notice till now. Any thoughts about the format of presentation? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

An extra column just before the "outcome" would probably make the table too wide, especially as some of the DDs were called over bumper collections of blocked bills. Possibly modifying the outcome column to something like "trigger legislation and outcome"? For some DDs the fate of the trigger bill itself is a significant factor (although for others such as 1983 the triggers were little more than convenience). Timrollpickering (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe a non-tabular approach is called for. Have a play and see what you can come up with. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As a starting point here are the bills for as many of the DDs as I can find:

• 1914 - Government Preference Prohibition Bill to abolish preferential employment for trade union members in the public service (Joseph Cook suggests this was a deliberate provocation to get the Senate to provide a trigger); the government was defeated

• 1951 - Commonwealth Bank Bill which was passed by the Senate before a joint sitting was necessary (the Senate refused to rise to the bait on the Communist Party Dissolution Bill [No 2] and actually passed it)

• 1974 - Six bills - Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2), Senate (Representation of Territories) Bill, Representation Bill, Health Insurance Bill, Health Insurance Commission Bill, and Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill. All were passed by the joint sitting, but the last was later ruled invalid by the courts on the meaning of "fail to pass" (the courts ruled that the Senate should have reasonable time to consider a bill and the three month clock does not start ticking the moment a bill arrives at the Senate).

• 1975 - Twenty-one bills(!) - Health Insurance Levy Bill 1974, Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill 1974, Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1974, Minerals (Submerged Lands) Bill 1974, Minerals (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Bill 1974, National Health Bill 1974, Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1974, Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) 1974, National Investment Fund Bill 1974, Electoral Laws Amendment Bill 1974, Electoral Bill 1975, Privy Council Appeals Abolition Bill 1975, Superior Court of Australia Bill 1974, Electoral Re-distribution (New South Wales) Bill 1975, Electoral Re-distribution (Queensland) Bill 1975, Electoral Re-distribution (South Australia) Bill 1975, Electoral Re-distribution (Tasmania) Bill 1975, Electoral Re-distribution (Victoria) Bill 1975, Broadcasting and Television Bill (No. 2) 1974, Television Stations Licence Fees Bill 1974, Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Bill 1974; the government that introduced the bills was defeated.

• 1983 - Thirteen bills - Nine sales tax amendment bills, Canberra College of Advanced Education Bill, States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2), Australian National University Amendment Bill (No. 3) and Social Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1981; the government was defeated.

• 1987 - Australia Card Bill; could been put onto the statute book by a joint sitting but drafting errors meant it would be impossible to operate (it needed regulations which could be disallowed by either house of parliament and it was clear the Senate would not tolerate them) so was abandoned.

Clearly some of these lists could overwhelm the table. Thoughts? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There have been only 6 double dissolutions, so that's all of them. Here are the refs from Odgers Senate Practice:

• 1914: Government Preference Prohibition Bill
• 1951: Commonwealth Bank Bill
• 1974: 6 bills
• 1975: 21 bills
• 1983: 13 bills
• 1987: Australia Card Bill

For 1914, 1951 and 1987, we could simply mention the name of the bill in the table (and we already do in the case of 1987). The others could appear in footnotes. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry for not replying sooner.) Yes that's probably for best. 1951 could also use a footnote stating that there's a misconception floating about that the trigger was trying to ban the Communist Party. I'll have a bash at writing & coding this in the next few days. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy-edit

Hi, I've just been through it quickly.

Please reinstate the "not" (which was before "easier") if I was wrong to remove it: "In a double dissolution, each state elects their entire 12-seat senate delegation, while the two territories elect their two senators as they would in a regular federal election. Because all seats are contested in the same election, it is easier for smaller parties to win seats under the Senate proportional voting system: the quota for the election of each senator in each Australian state in a full Senate election is 7.69% (1/(12+1)), while in a normal half-Senate election the quota is 14.28% (1/(6+1)).

Tony (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of "not". It was inserted by a one-time user here. I've now also removed the other part of their "contribution". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Only joint sitting

Because this is such a key article for a country other than my own, I hesitate to make an entry, but I wonder if it might be useful to mention in the opening paragraphs that there has only been one joint sitting of the two houses following a double dissolution? It might help to emphasise that a joint sitting is even more unusual than a double dissolution. Perhaps right at the end of the intro? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Current constitutional crisis

There is ongoing and unresolved controversy regarding the allocation of short and long term Senate seats following a double dissolution election. There are various details on this spread across about half a dozen wikipedia articles, mostly on the fallout for the 2016 election. An admin (timrollpickering) has decided to scrub every mention of it from the double dissolution article, which as far as I can tell is the most appropriate place for it. He is not Australian and does not appear to understand what is going on here. Can someone else please intervene here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 21:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You have been trying to insert this material across Wikipedia and repeatedly knocked back; you even created an article on the relevant section of the law which was rapidly deleted. Your latest addition claims a controversy but provides no reliable sources whatsoever (badly formatted links to other Wikipedia articles do not constitute WP:RSes) and is a sign of continued soapboxing. Hence it has been reverted. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I have not been "trying". I have successfully gotten it included on about half a dozen pages, and those pages are better for it. I have indeed had one article deleted, and the key recommendation to come out of that was to move the content here, which seems reasonable to me and is exactly what I am trying to do.

Internal links are not a sign of soapboaxing. They are evidence of the controversy. I could copy and paste the content here, but I hope you agree that the details on the 2016 election are better placed in the article on the 2016 election (which is already duplicated across several articles), with a link and concise summary here. Likewise the details on the 1984 amendments to the act are better placed in the article on the act. I will make the links proper for you, but this will require you to leave the changes there for more than five minutes at a time.

You should try informing yourself of what is going on in Australia because of this. You have this strange notion that my efforts to improve wikipedia are some sinister agenda or violent campaign. You appear to be making decisions based on some kind of personal issue rather than the merits of the content. Uncertainty on how to count the votes in an election is an important issue and I should not have to explain why it is important or justify its inclusion in the most relevant article. If you have any more problems with the content, discuss it here rather than censoring the article. I am happy to work with you and other editors to improve it, as the outcomes in the other articles show, but your insistence that this information must be deleted because it is soapboxing is not acceptable. The fact that this information makes certain political parties look bad is not evidence of bias or soapboxing, it is just you reaching a rational conclusion based on the facts. This information cannot be separated from the actions of the parties involved. Oz freediver (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Oz freediver: For the benefit of observers, which of the "half a dozen pages" has the best selection of reliable sources that have covered the controversy? —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is probably the best one. See the last two paragraphs of the first section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2016 Oz freediver (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, I suspect I am one of the people who is considered to have recommended including content here. I meant factual, unbiased information about the ways of allocating seats that were available to the senate, and which ones had been used at each new establishment of the rotation (including the first). I am unaware of any reliable sources referring to an "ongoing constitutional crisis". As far as I can tell, the senate had several options available to it (including random allocation), and the senate chose one of those. It happened to be the same way that had been used several times in the past, and not the newest method available (which had been recommended by previous senates that could not bind a future senate). If there's an onging constitutional crisis, or even a momentary one, it needs references that say it is a crisis. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It is an issue. But certainly not any kind of "crisis", constitutional or otherwise. I've changed the wording accordingly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_crisis A constitutional crisis is a situation that a legal system's constitution or other basic principles of operation appear unable to resolve... A constitutional crisis may occur because one or more parties to the dispute willfully choose to violate a provision of a constitution or an unwritten constitutional convention, or it may occur when the disputants disagree over the interpretation of such a provision or convention. If the dispute arises because some aspect of the constitution is ambiguous or unclear, the ultimate resolution of the crisis often establishes a precedent for the future.

Jack and Scott, you appear to be arguing that it is not a crisis because it is not a problem - ie that the original constitution actually intended for the outcome of a senate election to be allocated randomly or for one group to control the Senate to give themselves more seats. Constitutions often leave these things ambiguous with the intention that a clear convention will be established. When those conventions become unclear or under dispute, it is a constitutional crisis, as explained by the wikipedia article on constitutional crises. The fact that it influences the outcome of an election justifies the term crisis. It is ongoing because the convention has been under dispute and unclear in the last two double dissolution elections, spanning 3 decades, and unless something drastic happens we will not know, going into the next double dissolution election, how the Senate votes will be counted. Do you really need someone to tell you that is a crisis? The fact that the constitution leaves it to convention does not mean it is not a constitutional crisis. The fact that it was a bloodless coup and no-one is threatening to overturn the government does not mean it is a crisis, only that our politicians are the most boring and spineless ones on the planet. Previous Senates did not merely "recommend" the new method. They agreed to it, twice, with bipartisan support, using the clearest demonstration of support available to them short of a referendum - a Senate resolution. The term "recommend" was used by one particularly lazy journalist in an apparent reference to these resolutions. If the commercial media completely fails to mention those two resolutions, they are hardly going to explain that it is a constitutional crisis. On this issue the only rational conclusion is that our journalists genuinely are lazy and stupid and that wikipedia should not follow their lead. Until I started fixing the articles here that is exactly what wikipedia was doing - to the extent that there was not a single mention of the 1998 and 2010 resolutions, or section 282 of the CEA, anywhere on wikipedia, and I have been butting heads against people who want it handed to them on a platter ever since. If you want a reliable source, link to the wikipedia article, or an independent dictionary, on the definition of a constitutional crisis. I am pretty sure wikipedia allows its editors to put two and two together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The first reference in the terms section of Results for the Australian federal election, 2016 (Senate)[1] clearly talks about the two methods and quotes Senator Rhiannon saying “Section 282 is more democratic and the Senate has acknowledged that on previous occasions,”. However both of the disaffected people have accepted that the decision of the senate was properly reached and is binding. There was no crisis that could not be addressed by established processes, and indeed your comment above about precedent could be construed to prefer the method that was used this time. And no, WP:SYNTH says that Wikipedia editors should not put two and two together if the sources don't. We leave that to the readers. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Scott's last point overrides all else. Even if you're absolutely right about it being a crisis - which I strongly doubt, btw - Wikipedia can't say so merely on the opinion of an editor. It needs some reliable external sources to have come to the same conclusion. Afaik, none have. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

However both of the disaffected people have accepted that the decision of the senate was properly reached and is binding. Binding maybe, and permitted by the constitution. Properly reached, no.

and indeed your comment above about precedent could be construed to prefer the method that was used this time Sure, but you would have to be pretty desperate to spin it that way. Oz freediver (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for it not being "properly reached"? --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Do all the newspaper articles with them complaining about it count? Are you asking about whether it was improper, or whether the Senators who got ripped off have accepted it as being proper? Oz freediver (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No. They show that some people were not happy about it. They don't show that the decision was not properly reached by the Senate. There are lots of decisions supported by the majority where the people who wanted a different outcome are not happy. --Scott Davis ^Talk 20:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

So what exactly do you mean by proper? Would you say it was proper to go into the election with two bipartisan Senate resolutions to use the fairer method then change the vote counting rules after people have voted? Do you think the majority supports this backflip? How have both of the disaffected people accepted it as proper, as you suggested? Do you just mean that the constitution allows the major parties to get away with it? Oz freediver (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no point in continuing to argue, unless you can come with some external sources that refer to this matter as a "crisis". I very much doubt they exist, but I'm open to correction. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Australian federal election 2016: Political and constitutional crisis leaves Malcolm Turnbull fighting on all fronts http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/australian-federal-election-2016-political-and-constitutional-crisis-leaves-malcolm-turnbull-fighting-on-all-fronts-20160704-gpy5xb.html Oz freediver (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Try harder. That piece, written 2 days after the election, long before the final numbers were known, was about the possible dead-heat in the House of Representatives. Nothing whatever to do with the allocation of long-term and short-term Senate seats. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

So a possible dead heat in the HOR counts as a constitutional crisis, but making up the rules for counting votes after the election has happened is not? Do you think the article is claiming that our constitution cannot handle a "dead heat" involving up to 13 cross benchers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 12:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge articles

Draft:Rotation_of_senators_after_a_double_dissolution was suggested to be merged with this article. See also earlier discussion about creation of a new page at Talk:Derryn_Hinch#3_year_senate_term — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 12:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The comment was: "Comment: This should be discussed at the double discussion article talk page whether to have split articles AngusWOOF" Oz freediver (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That looks like a plausible title for an interesting subsidiary article. Both articles presently suffer from recentism in places. For example Double dissolution assumes 12 senators per state in section Elections, which has not always been true. Draft:Rotation of senators after a double dissolution has a good first sentence and OK second sentence. The rest of the lead paragraph and lead section only consider the last two DD elections and the other five DDs and the original allocation of terms are not mentioned. Once this recentism is addressed, the draft article is likely to be long enough and distinct enough from the DD article to be able to stand alone - especially since the 1901 (or 1903?) distribution of seats was not as a consequence of a dissolution of parliament, so does not fit in this article at all. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

So a new section prior to 1984 legislation with some of the history? I am unfamiliar with that. Would you like to draft something? Oz freediver (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added a bit, primarily about the first election. The newspapers were quite interesting before the Senate first sat, considering the possible methods and consequences. Drawing lots (ie random choice) was a distinct possibility, but the senate chose first-elected, which would have set the precedent for the future times it has been needed. I am also unfamiliar with the topic. Since it seems to be a pet topic of yours, I shall allow you to continue to research and write draft text about the other times. I have much wider interests. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Oz freediver, I suggested that it be discussed here whether there's enough content to split this from the main DD topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

So how long do we have to talk before we can switch from draft to published article? In my opinion it already has enough content, enough reliable sources, and enough support among editors and admin to publish as a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 05:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I ran the citation bot on the article, but it seems to have stalled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 05:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The topic has my support. The current content is well short of complete coverage. Your point that Derryn Hinch was short-changed could well become stronger if the sources indicate any kind of conspiracy in other cases. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by the sources indicating a conspiracy. It's fairly transparent as far as conspiracies go. They repeatedly said they would do one thing. They "negotiated" to do the opposite on those two occasions where there was a benefit to them. There is pretty much universal support for the recount method outside the first senate sittings after the 1987 and 2016 DD elections.

Thanks for sorting out the citations.

I don't quite get this process. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort of ongoing improvement. But it has turned into an administered institution publishing "complete" articles. It should never be considered complete. The question is, when is it "good enough" to publish conventionally? I'm keen to hit the resubmit button.Oz freediver (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I split the article into two main sections - background and stalled reform. I moved the old intro to the start of the stalled reform section, as it kind of leads into the section on the description of methods. Oz freediver (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking WP:AUSPOL for their input. If enough members from that WP think it's okay to split this way, then I'll approve the draft. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Scott here - I think there is enough to hang an article on, but the content is a bit of an issue at the moment. Everything under the heading "Stalled reform on allocation of seats" takes a very clear point of view, most egregiously in the completely uncited "Fairness and preferential voting" section which is entirely argumentative. (Even the title of the section, "Stalled reform", is clearly POV.) It happens to be an argument I agree with, but it is entirely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. If this POV were addressed, I would support moving the article to mainspace. Frickeg (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an entire section of references to people describing it as fairer. I just added a reference explaining the link between fairness and referential voting. Do I need to add a reference for the maths? Also, I don't see why labeling it as "stalled reform" counts as a POV, but am open to alternative terminology.Oz freediver (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

While I agree there is enough content for a separate article, in my view that article is at Section 13 of the Constitution of Australia, a section which only has 2 purposes, 1 of which is for the allocation of terms. Section 13 requires the new senate to decide, without giving directions as to how or even allowing legislation as to how. How the senate has chosen to implement section 13 fits properly within that article. Like many articles, it can be improved, and the addition of the detailed facts set out in the proposed article would be an improvement. Some of the draft material needs some work & "Fairness and preferential voting" looks like it may contain original research as well as being argumentative. Unless I am missing something, the addition of material to an existing article doesn't need any formal process or approval, but are things we can sort through in the usual way of reaching consensus on that article's talk page.

On a related note Section 57 of the Constitution of Australia is currently a redirect - it seems to me that this article covers most of what would be in an article on section 57. If anyone thinks that such a move would be controversial, just say so & I will hold off any discussion until after this has been sorted. Find bruce (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bruce. That one kind of slipped under the radar. I think section 13 makes more sense than section 57, though you might want to cross link the Double_dissolution article (this one) with section 57. This seems to boil down to an issue of the title of the article being descriptive vs the the title being a reference to a section of the constitution. My preference would be for descriptive article titles and links to relevant sections of the constitution as needed. Though I am sure wikipedia has a policy on this buried somewhere.Oz freediver (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I had not noticed that there are articles for some sections of the Constitution. I suspect that this draft could be merged to Section 13 of the Constitution of Australia#Allocation of terms fairly soon. Since Find bruce has already provided a structure with references to far more relevant points in history than the new draft, I think the merge would immediately address my concerns about lack of breadth (depth and POV are different issues, the POV should be reduced before merge). A merge leaves a redirect, so where appropriate, links can be to Rotation of senators after a double dissolution which should address Oz freediver preference. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

go ahead and make whatever changes you think are appropriate. Will the edit history of the draft remain available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 21:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It is likely to be a few days (at least) before I have a chance to look seriously at it. Others are welcome to help. I think since the draft now has multiple authors, the history will need to be kept. That means that when the merge is occurring, the draft should be moved to mainspace, then immediately replaced by a redirect to the merged article, with appropriate edit summary in the merged article pointing to the (mainspace redirect) former draft. I'm pretty sure that will satisfy all the policy rules OK. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Scott Davis, so the plan forward would be to merge the content to the Section 13 article, then redo the draft article to a redirect for acceptance so as to preserve its history? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and accepted the Rotation article and placed a redirect on top to section 13. Please proceed with merging the content over. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I'm busy for another day or two, but will move it over when I get a chance if no-one else has. I assume this is a manual process, ie copy and paste into some kind of sensible combination? Oz freediver (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:PROMERGE is the how-to part of WP:MERGE. Copy-and-paste with an edit comment that links to where it came from and this discussion. Ideally, just paste into he right sections, save, then go back and edit it to flow and all make sense in the new context. Then go and save the redirect (it's already in a comment) and patch up the talk pages. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Merging is done. Not sure if I should have copied over the talk page contents, or deleted the old one. I'll try to do a bit of a clean-up of the content, but I doubt I'll finish today.Oz freediver (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Move this article?

Should this article be moved to Section_57_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia? Oz freediver (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)