Senate (Australia) - Where The Houses Disagree

Where The Houses Disagree

If the Senate twice in a three month period refuses to pass the same piece of legislation that was initiated in the lower house, the government may either abandon the bill or continue to revise it, or, in certain circumstances outlined in section 57 of the Constitution, the Prime Minister can recommend the governor-general dissolve the entire parliament in a double dissolution. In such an event, the entirety of the Senate faces re-election, as does the House of Representatives, rather than only about half the chamber as is normally the case. After a double dissolution election, if the bills in question are reintroduced, and if they again fail to pass the Senate, the governor-general may agree to a joint sitting of the two houses in an attempt to pass the bills. Such a sitting has only occurred once, in 1974.

The double dissolution mechanism is not available for bills that originate in the Senate and are blocked in the lower house.

After a double dissolution election Section 13 of the Constitution requires the Senate to divide the senators into two classes, with the first class having a three year term, and the second class six. The Senate has determined that this division shall result from the order of election, with those elected first having a six-year term.

On 8 October 2003, the then Prime Minister John Howard initiated public discussion of whether the mechanism for the resolution of deadlocks between the houses should be reformed. High levels of support for the existing mechanism, and a very low level of public interest in that discussion, resulted in the abandonment of these proposals.

Read more about this topic:  Senate (Australia)

Famous quotes containing the words houses and/or disagree:

    If you are going to build something in the air it is always better to build castles than houses of cards.
    —G.C. (Georg Christoph)

    Some have said that the thesis [of indeterminacy] is a consequence of my behaviorism. Some have said that it is a reductio ad absurdum of my behaviorism. I disagree with this second point, but I agree with the first. I hold further that the behaviorism approach is mandatory. In psychology one may or may not be a behaviorist, but in linguistics one has no choice.
    Willard Van Orman Quine (b. 1908)