Disagreement between the Houses.
57. If the House of Representatives260 passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects261 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 months262 the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes263 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 dissolve264 the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. But such dissolution shall not take place265 within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.
If after such dissolution the House of Representatives 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 convene a joint sitting266 of the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.
The members present at the joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the proposed law as last proposed by the House of Representatives, and upon amendments, if any, which have been made therein by one House and not agreed to by the other, and any such amendments which are affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall be taken to have been carried, and if the
― 684 ―
proposed law, with the amendments, if any, so carried is affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives, it shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of the Parliament, and shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent.
HISTORICAL NOTE.—The first deadlock proposal was made in the Sydney Convention of 1891, when Mr. Wrixon proposed a joint sitting in case suggestions of the Senate as to Money Bills were rejected by the House of Representatives. This was negatived. (Conv. Deb., Syd., 1891, pp. 706, 759–62; supra, p. 139.)
At the Adelaide session in 1897, deadlock proposals were moved by Mr. Wise and Mr. Isaacs, but were negatived on division. (Conv. Deb., Adel., pp. 1150–73; supra, pp. 180–2.)
During the statutory adjournment, the Legislative Assemblies of New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia, suggested the insertion of different deadlock provisions (supra, pp. 182–7), and at the Sydney session the question was debated at length, with the result that two schemes were inserted in the Bill:—(1) A consecutive dissolution of both Houses, proposed by Mr. Symon; (2) a simultaneous dissolution of both Houses, followed if necessary by a joint sitting at which a three-fifths majority should decide—a proposal built up on propositions made by Mr. Wise, Sir Geo. Turner, and Mr. Carruthers. (Conv. Deb., Syd., 1897, pp. 541–778, 807–980; supra, pp. 189–193)
At the Melbourne session, after the second report, the question was again discussed, with the result that the scheme for a consecutive dissolution was omitted; but otherwise —except in minor details—the Sydney decision was adhered to. (Conv. Deb., Melb, pp. 2104–2249, 2451–2; supra, pp. 202–4.) Drafting amendments were made before the first report and after the fourth report.
The three-fifths majority was strongly objected to in New South Wales, and both Houses of the Parliament of that colony recommended the substitution of a simple majority. At the Premiers' Conference at Melbourne in 1899, an absolute majority was substituted for a three-fifths majority. (Supra, pp. 214–8.)