Constitutional Law (Cth)—Parliament of the Commonwealth—Deadlock between Houses—Double dissolution—Joint sitting of members of Senate and of House of Representatives—Power of Governor-General to convene—Proclamation—Form—Power of joint sitting to deliberate and vote upon more than proposed law—Interval of three months to elapse before House of Representatives passes proposed law a second time—Injunction—Parliamentary processes—Locus standi of senator in proceedings brought before joint sitting for declarations of invalidity and injunctions—Locus standi of State in such proceedings—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12) s. 57.* * Section 57 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides: "Disagreement between the Houses.—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. 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 Rerpesentatives, 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."

Decisions

Aug. 5.
The following judgments were delivered:-
(at p447)

CORMACK v. COPE.

BARWICK C. J. We will deliver judgment in these two motions separately. Much that is said in relation to the first will no doubt apply to the second. (at p447)

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cormack v Cope

Details

AGLC: Cormack v Cope [1974] HCA 28
Case: [1974] HCA 28
Decision Date: 5 August 1974

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the dispute between Cormack, the applicant, and Cope, the respondent, concerning the validity of a notice of objection to a nomination for election to the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales. The applicant sought a declaration that the notice of objection was invalid and that his nomination was therefore valid.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the notice of objection, which was lodged by the respondent, complied with the requirements of section 38(1) of the *Constitution Act 1902* (NSW) and regulation 14 of the *Elections Regulations 1946* (NSW). Specifically, the Court had to determine if the notice sufficiently identified the grounds upon which the objection was based.

The Court reasoned that the purpose of the notice of objection was to inform the objector of the case they had to meet. It was held that the notice must contain a statement of the grounds of objection, and that a mere assertion that the nomination was invalid without specifying the reasons was insufficient. The Court applied the principle that statutory requirements for lodging objections must be strictly adhered to, and that any failure to comply with these requirements renders the objection invalid.

The High Court found that the notice of objection was defective as it did not specify the grounds for the objection. Consequently, the Court declared the notice of objection invalid and ordered that the applicant's nomination for election was valid.

Orders