Julia Gillard says that neither party has convinced Australia that it alone has won the right to govern and that ''our political processes must change''. The Greens have expressed a wish to see the House of Representatives and the Senate working together with the government on an ambitious legislative agenda.
Under a Gillard government, the hung federal Parliament potentially means a vast expansion of government regulation, while an Abbott government would be focused on spending cuts, with little call for new legislation.
With the Coalition in power, an opposition ALP-Greens alliance in the Senate would agitate for more taxes, increased spending and more regulation in areas where these two political parties share common goals.
However, a House of Representatives under a Coalition government's control would place severe limits on an activist Senate's ability to promote new spending and regulations.
This is because important matters for change that involve legislation must first be passed by the House of Representatives.
And the Coalition, having fought an election opposing Labor's wasted expenditure and new taxes, has a relatively modest legislative program, largely concerning procedures to combat illegal immigration and the requirement of major firms to provide paid parental leave.
The Greens may support the opportunity provided by the paid parental leave proposal to impose costs on business. But, by and large, when the ALP-Green majority is seated in the post-July 2011 Senate ''house of review'' under an Abbott government it would be reviewing proposals rather than legislation.
An ALP government would require the support of the Greens as well as at least two of the rural-based independents. Legislative agendas where the ALP and Greens have reconcilable positions include: some form of new mining tax; many carbon-related measures, including a carbon tax; emission reduction obligations on power stations; cash for clunkers; emission requirements on new buildings and tax breaks for green buildings.
They also share common ground on increased superannuation guarantees and workforce entitlement guarantees, as well as banning uranium mining in national parks, a vast expansion of marine parks where fishing would be prohibited, preventing the importation of illegally felled timber, and increased regulation of industrial and agricultural chemicals.
This common ground opens major new avenues for additional regulations, taxes and spending. But few, if any, of the more important features of such an ALP-Green legislative program could pass the current Senate and an action program would have to wait until July next year.
Even after that, the conservative independents would veto many aspects of it. Thus, they would be likely to oppose any increased regulation of pesticides, a major expansion of workplace entitlements and an extension of marine national parks. They may also oppose the mining tax and an early introduction of a carbon tax, two policies the ALP might be looking for an excuse to jettison or defer.
The Greens, in alliance with the ALP, might also want to see some of their own agenda addressed Scrutiny of the Greens' policies reveals just how prosperity-sapping and radical the party is.
The smorgasbord they would present to their alliance partners might include: corralling modern agriculture with measures such as bans on GM food; no new coalmines; bans on woodchip exports; prevention of deep-sea bottom trawling; reduced fishing generally; and bans on all factory ship-based fishing in Australian pelagic fisheries.
They may propose prohibiting the exploration for, and mining and export of, uranium; opposing new coal mines and the expansion of existing mines, placing further restraints on landholders' rights; phasing out intensive farming practices in meat, dairy and egg production and nationalising major irrigation systems and severely reducing the use of water for irrigation purposes.
Even if the conservative independents and the ALP itself prevented the Greens' platform from heralding an avalanche of new regulations, a Gillard government would surely have to offer compromises to support some of these proposals.
An Abbott government before and after July 2011, in focusing on expenditure reductions, would mean calls in the Senate for regulations, taxes and spending might simply be noise. This would probably make it more stable than one led by Julia Gillard.
But a Senate dominated by an ALP-Green alliance might seek to promote policies through influencing the budget money supply bills. Although the Senate cannot reject supply, it has shown a considerable capacity to modify programs. In the event of an Abbott government, the extent of this incursion into the preserve of the House of Representatives would be sorely tested.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment