The double dissolution cases

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.