Joint Sitting of the Australian Parliament of 1974

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|March 2006|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

A joint sitting of the Australian parliament was convened in August 1974, comprising members of both the Senate and House of Representatives. This was the first, and so far, only time that under section 57 of the Australian Constitution that members of both houses sat together as a single legislative body. This sitting deliberated and voted upon the following acts:

• Commonwealth Electoral Act ( No 2) 1973;
• Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1973;
• Representation Act 1973;
• Health Insurance Commission Act 1973;
• Health Insurance Act 1973 and
• Petroleum and minerals Authority Act 1973.

Political pretext

In early 1974, the conservative parties led by Billy Snedden had chosen to use their majority in the Senate to resolutely oppose the above six bills. As they had been twice rejected by the Senate a constitutional trigger for a double dissolution was obtained under Section 57. On 18 May an election for both houses of parliament was held. Campaigning for the Labor party, the leader Gough Whitlam asked the electorate to let him 'finish the job' using the slogan 'Give Gough a Go'. The Labor party was returned with a reduced majority and, crucially, less than a senate majority to enable his party to legislate.

This led to the historic joint sitting. Its constitionality was clear: from Section 57:

...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 sitting 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 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.

Consequently, a proclamation by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr on 30 July, for all members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to assemble at the House of Representatives chamber in Parliament House on 6 August was issued.

However, there was subsequent litigation seeking an injunction to the proceedings. Sir Magnus Cormack, the last knight to sit in Federal parliament, instigated CORMACK v. COPE which dealt with the nature and wording of the Governor-General's proclamation, and QUEENSLAND v. WHITLAM which dealt, inter alia, with the number of Acts a joint sitting could consider. The unanimous opinion delivered by the full court on 5th August, was that the High Court should not interfere in the legislative process and that the Parliament was fully bound by the Constitution.

The Sitting

Over two days, 6th and 7th August, covered by both radio and television, 187 parliamentarians sat together as a single legislative body. The House of Representatives chamber was chosen by Whitlam as it was "the people's House, the house where alone governments are made and unmade." The Speaker Mr J. Cope was chosen without dissent as 'Chairman' of the proceedings. Behaviour and restraint were shown by both sides of politics; all were in awe of the history they were making. Whitlam was jubilant that "at long last, after sustained stonewalling and filibustering the parliament can proceed to enact these essential parts of the governments program." The Leader of Oppostion, Billy Snedden, was more cynical, "This is indeed an historic occasion. So many people have described it as such-that one is convinced it must be."

However the conservative side of politics still chose to oppose without any compromise or amendment, all of the six bills as they had done twice before. Inevitably all six were subsequently passed. The pattern of the voting was unremarkable, following party lines: 96 ayes to 91 noes. On 8th August 1974 His Excellency the Governor-General, John Kerr, declared the Assent of Her Majesty the Queen and they were passed into law.

Subsequent legal challenge

Thirteen months later four litigants, VICTORIA v. THE COMMONWEALTH AND CONNOR ; NEW SOUTH WALES v. THE COMMONWEALTH ; QUEENSLAND v. THE COMMONWEALTH ; WESTERN AUSTRALIA v. THE COMMONWEALTH [1975] sought to over turn the 'Petroleum and minerals Authority Act 1973'.