![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
From my shallow reading of history that the petroleum act was disallowed 13 months later but Im unable (at least in the near future) to state succintly why. Any of you young legal eagles out there able? Please help yourselves! Eric A. Warbuton 06:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
...And why is this page tagged for cleanup? -- Stretch 04:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
With regards the disallowance, it comes down to the meaning of "fail to pass". This is the sort of thing a human being rather than a rule book can best determine.
In most parliamentary chambers legislation is rarely passed on the same day it is first introduced. It's even rarer in bicameral systems for both chambers to pass a bill on the same day. Instead there's normally debate about the legislation in the chamber itself, consideration of amendments and (usually) referral to a committee of the parliament. There may even be multiple votes - one on the general principle of the bill, another on the exact final text as amended. All of this takes time, and parliaments can also go into recess, so it's quite possible for legislation in the normal course of events to take longer than three months between passing the House of Representatives and the Senate without there being any intentional delay at all.
Of course equally the Senate can deliberately stall by either bottling the bill up in committee or repeatedly passing motions to defer consideration of the bill to a later date. So at the one extreme you have blatant filibustering and at the other you have normal parliamentary procedure taking time. The former is clearly the "fail to pass" that the double dissolution procedure is designed to overcome, but the latter isn't a case of the two houses being in conflict at all.
The court ruled that the Senate had been given insufficient time to consider the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill before it was used as a trigger for the double dissolution. I think the summer recess was a key factor and the ruling was that the three months began when the bill arrived on the floor of the Senate (February) rather than when it passed the House (13 December).
Also I'm not sure the courts can retroactively overturn a double dissolution and election itself; all they can do is rule the trigger legislation invalid if it's got onto the statute book by the double dissolution + joint sitting procedure. However the Governor General would have to take into account whether the trigger is in a position to make it and thus qualifies. It takes human judgement as to precisely where the fine line is between the Senate giving reasoned consideration to a bill the House is being overly hasty about vs the Senate filibustering on a bill the House reasonably wants passed, but this is what Governor Generals and courts are for. Timrollpickering ( talk) 00:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This article badly requires copy editing for a multitude of reasons:
I could go on but I won't. The article probably needs greater context for a reader unitiated in Australian politcs and/or law as well.
I'll do the copyedit if/when I find the time but I won't complain if someone else does it. Shadow007 07:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
"Voting split along party lines for all Bills: 96 ayes to 91 noes."... with 66 to 61 in the lower house, that would mean senate members split right down the middle on 30 each. Michael Townley, the independent, was admitted to the Liberal Party in early 1975, which leaves Liberal Movement senator Steele Hall... can anyone confirm Hall voted on ALP lines in this joint sitting? Timeshift 19:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Joint sittings can occur not only following a double dissolution, but also:
I'd like this article to be expanded to include these circumstances. This would entail a change of name to Joint Sittings of the Australian Parliament.
I've been doing some work on Casual vacancy, including material about the Territory Senators, that can be copied across. Info on the foreign dignitaries wouldn't be hard to compile, but at the moment there's no suitable place for such information - that I can think of. In any case, I don't like the idea of having the 3 sets of circumstances covered in 3 separate places. Far better for them to be all in one article.
Another option would be to have a separate article about Joint Sittings generally, with a link to this article and to Casual vacancy. But that would still leave the foreign dignitaries unaccounted for. Further, there seems to be a general lack of awareness about the way replacement Territory Senators are chosen were chosen between 1973 and 19831988, and it would be educational to have all these matters in the one article. That would be my strong preference. --
JackofOz
06:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The point remains that this was the only meaningful and practical joint sitting. Timeshift 09:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This was a useful article for me, but it didn't really explain what section 57 of the constitution is, or why a joint sitting is called for. Under what circumstances can this take place? Why didn't Whitlam do this the first time around, rather than having a double dissolution? Perhaps someone could clarify this in the article. Stevage 03:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"It was also the first Australian television broadcast in colour". Are we sure about this? According to Australian_television: "Test broadcasting of colour began in the late 1960s. In 1967 ATV-0 telecast the Pakenham races in colour under the supervision of the Broadcasting Control Board." ( ref) ThePizzaKing ( talk) 10:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joint Sitting of the Australian Parliament of 1974. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joint Sitting of the Australian Parliament of 1974. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joint Sitting of the Australian Parliament of 1974. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC) Archive url is fine. Find bruce ( talk) 22:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
From my shallow reading of history that the petroleum act was disallowed 13 months later but Im unable (at least in the near future) to state succintly why. Any of you young legal eagles out there able? Please help yourselves! Eric A. Warbuton 06:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
...And why is this page tagged for cleanup? -- Stretch 04:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
With regards the disallowance, it comes down to the meaning of "fail to pass". This is the sort of thing a human being rather than a rule book can best determine.
In most parliamentary chambers legislation is rarely passed on the same day it is first introduced. It's even rarer in bicameral systems for both chambers to pass a bill on the same day. Instead there's normally debate about the legislation in the chamber itself, consideration of amendments and (usually) referral to a committee of the parliament. There may even be multiple votes - one on the general principle of the bill, another on the exact final text as amended. All of this takes time, and parliaments can also go into recess, so it's quite possible for legislation in the normal course of events to take longer than three months between passing the House of Representatives and the Senate without there being any intentional delay at all.
Of course equally the Senate can deliberately stall by either bottling the bill up in committee or repeatedly passing motions to defer consideration of the bill to a later date. So at the one extreme you have blatant filibustering and at the other you have normal parliamentary procedure taking time. The former is clearly the "fail to pass" that the double dissolution procedure is designed to overcome, but the latter isn't a case of the two houses being in conflict at all.
The court ruled that the Senate had been given insufficient time to consider the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill before it was used as a trigger for the double dissolution. I think the summer recess was a key factor and the ruling was that the three months began when the bill arrived on the floor of the Senate (February) rather than when it passed the House (13 December).
Also I'm not sure the courts can retroactively overturn a double dissolution and election itself; all they can do is rule the trigger legislation invalid if it's got onto the statute book by the double dissolution + joint sitting procedure. However the Governor General would have to take into account whether the trigger is in a position to make it and thus qualifies. It takes human judgement as to precisely where the fine line is between the Senate giving reasoned consideration to a bill the House is being overly hasty about vs the Senate filibustering on a bill the House reasonably wants passed, but this is what Governor Generals and courts are for. Timrollpickering ( talk) 00:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This article badly requires copy editing for a multitude of reasons:
I could go on but I won't. The article probably needs greater context for a reader unitiated in Australian politcs and/or law as well.
I'll do the copyedit if/when I find the time but I won't complain if someone else does it. Shadow007 07:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
"Voting split along party lines for all Bills: 96 ayes to 91 noes."... with 66 to 61 in the lower house, that would mean senate members split right down the middle on 30 each. Michael Townley, the independent, was admitted to the Liberal Party in early 1975, which leaves Liberal Movement senator Steele Hall... can anyone confirm Hall voted on ALP lines in this joint sitting? Timeshift 19:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Joint sittings can occur not only following a double dissolution, but also:
I'd like this article to be expanded to include these circumstances. This would entail a change of name to Joint Sittings of the Australian Parliament.
I've been doing some work on Casual vacancy, including material about the Territory Senators, that can be copied across. Info on the foreign dignitaries wouldn't be hard to compile, but at the moment there's no suitable place for such information - that I can think of. In any case, I don't like the idea of having the 3 sets of circumstances covered in 3 separate places. Far better for them to be all in one article.
Another option would be to have a separate article about Joint Sittings generally, with a link to this article and to Casual vacancy. But that would still leave the foreign dignitaries unaccounted for. Further, there seems to be a general lack of awareness about the way replacement Territory Senators are chosen were chosen between 1973 and 19831988, and it would be educational to have all these matters in the one article. That would be my strong preference. --
JackofOz
06:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The point remains that this was the only meaningful and practical joint sitting. Timeshift 09:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This was a useful article for me, but it didn't really explain what section 57 of the constitution is, or why a joint sitting is called for. Under what circumstances can this take place? Why didn't Whitlam do this the first time around, rather than having a double dissolution? Perhaps someone could clarify this in the article. Stevage 03:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"It was also the first Australian television broadcast in colour". Are we sure about this? According to Australian_television: "Test broadcasting of colour began in the late 1960s. In 1967 ATV-0 telecast the Pakenham races in colour under the supervision of the Broadcasting Control Board." ( ref) ThePizzaKing ( talk) 10:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joint Sitting of the Australian Parliament of 1974. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joint Sitting of the Australian Parliament of 1974. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joint Sitting of the Australian Parliament of 1974. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC) Archive url is fine. Find bruce ( talk) 22:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)