Does a second chamber improve law-making or obstruct it?
Explain the role of the Senate as a house of review and a states house, and evaluate how well it serves contemporary Australia.
Why Australia has a bicameral parliament, the Senate's roles as a states house and a house of review, how proportional voting shapes it, and whether it serves contemporary Australia.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
You must explain the Senate's intended and actual roles, how it is elected, and evaluate whether it serves contemporary Australia.
Why two houses
A bicameral parliament has two chambers that must both agree before a bill becomes law. The framers of the Constitution created two houses to balance two principles: representation by population and the protection of the smaller states.
- The House of Representatives is based on population, so larger states have more members. The party with a majority here forms government.
- The Senate gives each state the same number of senators regardless of population, so smaller states are not dominated by larger ones.
The Senate as a states house
The Senate was intended to be a states house, protecting state interests by giving equal representation. In practice senators vote along party lines rather than purely as representatives of their states, so the states house role has weakened. Critics argue the Senate no longer functions as the framers intended.
The Senate as a house of review
The Senate's most significant modern function is as a house of review. It scrutinises bills passed by the lower house, proposes amendments, and runs committees that examine legislation and government administration in detail.
Does it serve contemporary Australia?
This is the evaluative big question.
Arguments that it serves Australia well include genuine scrutiny of legislation, protection against an over-powerful government, a voice for minor parties and diverse views, and detailed committee work that improves laws. Arguments that it does not include the weakening of its states house role, the disproportionate influence small parties can gain from holding the balance of power, the potential to obstruct an elected government's program, and the equal representation that gives a voter in a small state far more weight than one in a large state.
The deadlock mechanism
When the two houses cannot agree, the Constitution provides a process. A persistent deadlock can lead to a double dissolution, where both houses are dissolved and a full election is held, and if the deadlock continues a joint sitting of both houses can resolve it. This links the Senate's review role back to the broader system of constitutional government.
Connection to the rest of the course
The Senate connects to the legislative process, the division and separation of powers, and constitutional government. Its review function supports accountability and the rule of law, while debates over its fairness connect to the option area on whether the Constitution reflects the needs of contemporary society.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of SACE Board exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
2019 SACE Stage 22 marksIdentify one feature of the Senate and explain why this feature should be retained in a revised constitution.Show worked answer →
For two marks, name a feature and give a developed reason to keep it.
One feature is equal state representation (each state elects the same number of senators, currently 12, regardless of population). This should be retained because it protects the smaller states, giving them an equal voice in the upper house and preventing the larger states from dominating all national law-making - a key part of the federal bargain that made federation possible.
Alternatively, the house of review function combined with proportional representation voting could be named: it produces a chamber where the government rarely holds a majority, so legislation is scrutinised, amended and debated by minor parties and independents, improving accountability. Either feature with a sound explanation earns the marks.
2018 SACE Stage 210 marksCritically analyse how deadlocks between the two Houses of parliament are resolved in Australia.Show worked answer →
For 10 marks, explain the mechanism, evaluate its strengths and weaknesses, and reach a judgement.
- The mechanism (section 57)
- A deadlock arises when the Senate twice rejects, fails to pass, or passes with unacceptable amendments a Bill from the House of Representatives, with three months between. The Governor-General may then dissolve both Houses (a double dissolution) and call an election. If the deadlock continues after the election, the two Houses sit together in a joint sitting, where the larger House of Representatives usually prevails.
- Strengths
- The process gives voters the final say by sending the dispute to an election, respects bicameralism by not letting either House simply override the other, and provides an orderly constitutional path out of stalemate (used to pass the Commonwealth Electoral legislation after the 1974 double dissolution).
- Weaknesses
- It is slow and cumbersome, a double dissolution is politically risky and rarely used, and a joint sitting tends to favour the government, arguably undermining the Senate's role as a genuine check.
- Judgement
- A strong answer concludes the mechanism sensibly balances the two Houses and democratic accountability, but its rarity and cost mean most deadlocks are resolved by negotiation rather than section 57.