Double Dissolution
double dissolution: whether required two disagreements between houses may occur in same session of parliament
constitution ss 57, 128
With reference to your inquiry as to whether the two disagreements between the Houses, which are conditions precedent to the granting of a double dissolution, may occur in the same session or must occur in different sessions, I desire to say that in my opinion it is clear that the two disagreements may occur either in the same session or in two consecutive sessions, so long as, in either case, an interval of at least three months occurs.
The question turns on the provisions of the first paragraph of section 57 of the Constitution. That paragraph reads as follows:
57. If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. But such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time. …
If the section is divided into its component parts, the relation of those parts to one another may perhaps be more clearly seen. Thus:
If–
- the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and
- the Senate–
- rejects, or
- fails to pass it, or
- passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and
- after an interval of three months the House of Representatives in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested or agreed to by the Senate, and
- the Senate–
- rejects, or
- fails to pass it, or
- passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree–
the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously …
These various steps are to be taken in consecutive order and, except where otherwise indicated, each step may be taken immediately the next preceding step is completed.
The only case in which an indication of delay occurs is between steps (2) and (3). After step (2) has been completed an interval of three months must elapse before
step (3) can be taken. From the terms of the section it is clear that so long as the three months interval has elapsed, step (3) may be taken in the same or the next session.
In view of the plain words of the section, I cannot see how any other view of the section, than that set out above, is possible.
I may add that some months ago a question arose in connexion with section 128, which contains in this respect wording very similar to section 57. The question in that case, however, was not whether a constitutional alteration bill, having been passed by one House and rejected or not passed by the other House, could be passed by the first House a second time in the same session; but as to the date from which the interval of three months should be reckoned.(1) On the question as to the passage twice in the same session after the interval of three months had expired, there was no dispute, in view of the plain words of the section.
I am therefore strongly of opinion that after the House has passed a Bill and the Senate has rejected or failed to pass it, or has passed it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the House of Representatives may, after an interval of three months, and either in the same or in the next session, pass the Bill again. If the Senate again rejects or fails to pass the Bill, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, all the conditions laid down as precedent to the power given to the Governor-General to dissolve both Houses simultaneously have been complied with.
[Vol. 24, p. 836]
(1) See Opinion No.1461.