Please make sure P1 story by peake points to this and to letters.
Analysis by CRISPIN HULL (just use word byline not pic..ta)
Prime Minister John Howard does not need Senate approval to put his preamble to the people in a referendum.
This is despite huffing and puffing by the Democrats and Opposition saying they will not agree to the draft preamble.
All 42 referendum questions put to the people since federation have in fact been approved by both Houses first, but the Constitution does not require it.
The procedure for a referendum to amend the Constitution is laid out in Section 128 of the Constitution.
It says if a law for a referendum is passed by both Houses then it must go to the people after two months and before six months are up.
However, but if either House passes a law for a referendum and the other House rejects it and the first House passes it again after three months, then the Governor-General “”may” put the question to the people without the approval of the other House. There is no requirement for a double dissolution
When the Constitution uses the words “”the Governor-General may” do something, it usually means that the Governor-General will act on the advice of the Prime Minister. The practical effect is that Mr Howard can put his preamble through the House of Representatives have it rejected by the Senate and put it through the House of Representatives again and then advise the Governor-General to call a referendum.
If, on the other hand, the Senate tries to get up a preamble of its own and the House of Representatives rejects it and the Senate passes it again, the Prime Minister would simply advise the Governor-General against putting the Senate’s question to the people.
Of course, putting a preamble to the people without Senate approval would invite defeat. Or if the Senate cannot agree tot he preamble, it could be an excuse to junk the preamble referendum and possibly the republic referendum with it.