آخر تحديث - 13 أبريل 2021
Both Australians and Americans alike have become accustomed to a situation where the party, which holds the majority of seats in the House of Representatives, does not have a majority of seats in the Senate. But this resemblance masks an equally important difference. In Australia`s recent history, neither party was expected to have the votes to control the Senate itself. In the United States, however, it has not been uncommon since the 1980s for the House of Representatives to have a majority of parties (Democrats or Republicans) and for the Senate to have a majority of the others.  The modern U.S. Congress recently shuttled between a united and shared control over its two homes.  With the exception of the highly unlikely possibility that a silver bill could be contemplated at a joint meeting of the members of the two houses after a double dissolution. The first of these two developments is the one I introduced earlier: the possibility that a house in Washington could pass an invoice received from the other, but that it could occur with a full text substitute. This replacement represents a completely different version of the law and often embodies a very different approach to the subject of the law. Nevertheless, there is only one amendment that both Assemblies must now approve, regardless of the number of political differences that might be reflected in this amendment. What is the position of the Australian Parliament and the U.S. Congress on these factors? No brief summary can begin to answer such a broad question, but it can lay the groundwork for a comparison, as the two national assemblies attempt to reach legislative agreements.
 As a general rule, the House of Representatives also unanimously agreed to attend the legislation conference. However, if there are objections to this, unlike the Senate, the House of Representatives can simply approve a motion with a simple majority that achieves the same result. Many bicameral countries, such as the Netherlands, the Philippines, the Czech Republic, Ireland and Romania, are examples of bicameral systems that exist in unitary states. In countries such as this, the House of Lords generally focuses on reviewing the decisions of the House of Commons and possibly the use of a veto. If this logic is taken as a starting point, the Australian Senate, especially if it has a non-state majority, should not play a role in deciding the content of new laws, and it should certainly not be expected of the government to negotiate with the non-governmental majority of the Senate, as if it had the same constitutional claims of legislative influence or the same political claims about public support for its legislative preferences. In short, the government should impose itself in the legislative process as a question of constitutional law. Of course, the situation is very different in Washington, where the U.S. Senate has absolutely no doubt that it is an equal partner of the House of Representatives in terms of writing and, indeed, for some senators, it is undoubtedly the main partner.