A double dissolution would be cause for independent concern

If a double dissolution election were to be called before the regular House of Representatives and half-Senate federal election is due next May, it wouldn’t necessarily be the government with the most to lose.

There would be some very nervous crossbench senators rightly worried about the prospects of being turfed out of office much sooner than they had anticipated leaving parliament.

This is one reason why Anthony Albanese has been happy to give some oxygen to the speculation that a double dissolution is on the cards.

Frustrated that Labor hasn’t been able to get a Senate vote brought on for its Help to Buy bill this week, the Prime Minister has ever so slightly dangled the prospects of DD if the bill is rejected again.

Apparently, the PM’s legal advice is that a delay in a bill can be regarded as a failure to pass.

That’s the attitude the government took when its Housing Australian Future Fund legislation was delayed, so it’s only natural to assume it believes a ploy by the Coalition and the Greens to delay the Help to Buy bill is tantamount to a rejection.

Labor knew its bill was facing defeat but it wanted the vote anyway, if for no other reason than to kill it and move on.

It didn’t play out that way and so if the bill is returned later this year and voted down, the government could consider that to be a second rejection and the PM might jump in the limo and head to Government House.

Australians could be sent to the polls as early as January to vote in a double dissolution election.

As things currently stand now, though, that’s not likely to happen.

It would be a risky move for Labor, which is struggling in the polls against a wily Opposition Leader willing to exploit the tough economic times many voters are having to navigate.

But Albanese is willing to let the DD speculation percolate in the electorate because there is more pain waiting for quite a few crossbenchers should they be forced to seek so soon the public’s permission to retain their seats.

Other than for the ACT and the Northern Territory, senators are elected for a cushy six-year term, which makes it easy for a maverick to spit the dummy with the party that got them elected to sit on the crossbench as an independent without losing their seat for some time.

That doesn’t happen a great deal, but some wannabe candidates who don’t have the guts to stand as an independent will exploit the system enough to get elected on a party platform and then feign outrage over the party’s direction once they are safely ensconced in the Senate.

Among the current senators, Fatima Payman quit Labor to join the crossbench; Lidia Thorpe quit the Greens; and Tammy Tyrrell is no longer with the Jacqui Lambie Network.

Yet all remain duly elected senators, comfortably freewheeling in the Upper House’s red seats in the full knowledge they can’t be removed anytime soon … Unless, of course, a double dissolution election is called.

Australians generally don’t warm to the antics of those who get elected under the banner and with the help of a particular political party only to then turn their back on that same party shortly after being elected.

Few get re-elected but they don’t seem to mind because, for the most part, they’ve had six years in the Senate.

A double dissolution election in January could – and would – see turncoat senators who haven’t even notched up three years get turfed out.

In addition to that, One Nation would struggle to keep Malcolm Roberts in the Senate and United Australia’s Ralph Babet would be almost certain to lose out too.

David Van, who was expelled from the Liberals’ party room and subsequently quit the party to sit as an independent, wouldn’t get re-elected either.

Even the Greens, who currently have 11 senators, could be facing an uphill battle to keep that number if they all have to face an election at the same time.

While a double dissolution election could swing either way for the government, it would be outright termination for a handful of crossbench senators – and the PM is making sure they get that message before they reject one of his bills for a second time and give him that trigger.

It’s not going to happen. But it could.