Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

4 results

  • 9 - The Double Dissolution Cases

  • Edited by H. P. Lee, Monash University, Victoria, George Winterton, University of New South Wales, Sydney
  • Book:
    Australian Constitutional Landmarks
    Published online:
    07 October 2011
    Print publication:
    07 October 2003, pp 213-228

  • Summary

    Section 57, which was designed to create a mechanism for the resolution of a ‘deadlock’ over a proposed law arising between the House of Representatives and the Senate, has played and will continue to play a critical part in Australian constitutional and political controversies. In some respects, however, the operation of the section remains uncertain. It was most certainly uncertain, in 1974, when the controversy over the double dissolution arising from the Senate's rejection of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill (‘PMA Bill’) and five other Bills arose. This rejection generated a continuing constitutional controversy which was resolved by three High Court decisions: Cormack v Cope, PMA and the Territory Senators case.

    Section 57

    Section 57 provides:

    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. […]

  • Reflections of an Itinerant Judge in the Asia-Pacific Region

  • Sir Anthony Mason
  • Journal:
    International Journal of Legal Information / Volume 28 / Issue 2 / Summer 2000
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    28 February 2019, pp. 311-335
    Print publication:
    Summer 2000

  • Since my retirement from the High Court of Australia in April 1995, I have pursued various activities. As Chairman of the National Library 1995-1998, National Fellow at the Australian National University and Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, I have been concerned with some current issues concerning libraries, including funding and copyright reform. My main purpose on this occasion is to speak about my experiences as a judicial rover in Fiji, the Solomon Islands and Hong Kong, jurisdictions in which I have been sitting as a Judge and as a lecturer at the Chinese National Judges College in Beijing.