How our constitution allows the Senate to remove Prime Ministers

Most importantly, the necessary conditions for a double dissolution are unlikely to exist by May and there is a sound, principled objection to upper houses forcing lower house elections and not facing the people themselves. There exists a too-common misconception that the blockage of supply by the Senate triggers a double dissolution.

What does merit consideration is for the Senate to demand the resignation of John Howard as leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party as a condition for consideration and passage of the budget. This would have the effect of censuring the current Prime Minister without requiring an election and without occasioning a 1975-style "constitutional crisis".

Obviously, such a demand requires a credible sanction. A forced election would remain an option, notwithstanding the above reservations. The more damaged Howard’s credibility, the more likely that integrity would be a key election issue, to the advantage of neither Howard nor his party. Indeed, unless that state is reached the election option lacks value.

A second, quite realistic option, is for the Senate majority to decline to deal with the coalition government until Howard was replaced as Liberal leader. There would be no cooperation with the government’s legislative agenda and there would be a cessation of the normal conventions and civilities (eg pairs). It should be stressed that such a strategy does not constitute a rejection of supply and poses no threat to the routine business of executive government.

The political climate would determine the viability of this option. The more Howard’s credibility is damaged, the less downside for the Senate majority. After all, the Prime Minister stands on sand: the distinction between "core" and "non-core" promises doesn’t feature favourably in many textbooks on political morality.

Inherent in this discussion is an assumption that Peter Costello will emerge unscathed from the Senate inquiry, and thus can assume the Prime Ministership without a cloud over his integrity.

To those cynics who claim that all elections are full of lies and that this is all much ado about nothing, we would counter as follows. There is a considerable difference between dubious promises (no child in poverty, lower inflation or lower unemployment) and an outright, blatant untruth, where ample opportunity exists to correct that untruth. If we don’t make that distinction, then our polity is very sick indeed.