"Directly chosen" clause Section 24 provides that members of the House of Representatives be "directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth". A similar clause is found in section 7 relating to the election of senators. In
Attorney-General (Cth) ex rel. McKinlay v Commonwealth (1975), the
High Court of Australia found that the two "directly chosen" clauses do not necessitate a universal adult suffrage or require electorates of equal size ("
one vote, one value"). In
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997), the High Court held that: Freedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an indispensable incident of that system of government which the Constitution creates by directing that the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate shall be ‘directly chosen by the people’ of the Commonwealth and the States. In
Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007), which considered the voting rights of prisoners, Chief Justice
Murray Gleeson observed in
obiter that "the words of ss 7 and 24, because of changed historical circumstances including legislative history, have come to be a constitutional protection of the right to vote". Justices
William Gummow,
Michael Kirby and
Susan Crennan did not endorse a constitutional right to vote but held that sections 7 and 24 do not allow for disproportionate restrictions on the right to vote. The nexus clause has the effect of giving the House of Representatives, which is the representative of the most recent will of the people, additional weight in the event of a
joint sitting after a
double dissolution. However since the acceptance of full voting members in Parliament from the mainland Territories, the nexus no longer guarantees a relationship between the size of the House and the Senate and in particular '[once Territories are accorded representation the nexus requirement will no longer necessarily dictate the strengths of the two chambers when meeting together in joint sittings'. It also has the effect of requiring any substantive increase in the House (to accommodate population growth) to be accompanied by an increase in the number of Senators. One of the framers of the Constitution, Edmund Barton, claimed the nexus was 'an essential of Federation' in that it protected the relative size and status of the Senate. It has been noted that the nexus clause is one of the few clauses unique to the Australian Constitution, in that it has no identified precedent in other jurisdictions. Its inclusion was "hotly debated" and it has "since become a significant obstacle to any expansion of the size of parliament". In 1967, the
Holt government submitted to a
referendum a proposal to amend the constitution to abolish the nexus clause, which however was carried by a majority in only one state. The 1975 Constitutional Convention and the 1988 Constitutional Committee also supported the removal of the clause. The same case also ruled that the "people of the Commonwealth" only includes people in the States excludes people in the Territories. These rulings were later incorporated in legislation (
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) for the purpose of determining entitlements to House of Representatives seats.
Apportionment The section sets out the manner in which the number of members in each state and territory is to be determined. However, it also provides that that method shall apply "until the Parliament otherwise provides", which the Parliament has provided. The current apportionment method is described in section 48 of the
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and is still consistent with Section 24 of the Constitution. ==References==