The Senate and bicameralism (SACE Stage 2 Legal Studies)
“Explain the role of the Senate as a house of review and a states house, and evaluate how well it serves contemporary Australia.”
Australia has a bicameral parliament with two houses. The House of Representatives is based on population and forms government, while the Senate was designed as a states house, giving each state equal representation to protect smaller states. In practice the Senate operates mainly as a house of review that scrutinises and amends legislation. Because senators are elected by proportional representation, the Senate often holds the balance of power, which can either improve scrutiny or obstruct government.
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.
Bicameralism is a system of parliament with two houses. In Australia a bill must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate, which allows one house to review and check the other.
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.
Senators are elected by proportional representation, which makes it easier for minor parties and independents to win seats. As a result the government often lacks a majority in the Senate, so it must negotiate to pass laws. This balance of power is the main reason the Senate is an effective house of review.
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.
Do not say the government is formed in the Senate or that the Senate is just a rubber stamp. Government is formed in the House of Representatives, and the Senate is frequently controlled by parties other than the government, which is exactly why it can act as a strong house of review rather than simply approving whatever the government wants.
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.
Separate the Senate's intended role, the states house, from its actual role, the house of review, then evaluate using proportional representation and the balance of power. Mentioning the double dissolution mechanism shows you understand how deadlocks are resolved within the constitutional structure.
A SACE extended response rewards a balanced, evaluative argument grounded in the Senate's roles.
Step 1: State a contention
Argue that the Senate serves as a valuable house of review, though its design raises questions of fairness.
Step 2: Set out the roles
Explain the Senate as a states house and a house of review, and how proportional voting shapes its composition.
Step 3: Argue it serves well
Show its scrutiny of legislation, committee work and capacity to check the government and hold it accountable.
Step 4: Argue the limits
Show the equal state representation that over-represents small states, and the risk of obstruction or gridlock.
Step 5: Reach a judgement
Conclude on how well it serves contemporary Australia, weighing review and accountability against questions of fairness.
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 questions
Questions in the style of SACE Board exam questions on this dot point, each with a worked answer. They are written by ExamExplained unless tagged "Past paper"; the year shows the paper a question is modelled on.
2019 SACE Stage 2-style2 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 2-style10 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.
Practise this
Sources & how we know this
- Stage 2 Legal Studies subject outline (2025 onwards) — SACE Board
- Stage 2 Legal Studies: external assessment — SACE Board