McGinty v Western Australia

The High Court of Australia considered a case stated concerning the validity of certain provisions of Western Australian electoral legislation. The applicant, Mr. McGinty, challenged the constitutional validity of section 6 of the *Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899* (WA) and sections 2A(2), 6, and 9 of the *Electoral Distribution Act 1947* (WA). The core of the dispute revolved around whether these Western Australian laws, which established the state's electoral system, were inconsistent with implied constitutional principles derived from the Commonwealth Constitution, particularly sections 7 and 24, which require members of the Commonwealth Parliament to be "directly chosen by the people."

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Western Australian electoral laws were invalid by reason of their incompatibility with the implied constitutional requirement of representative government, specifically concerning the equality of voting power. The Court was asked to determine if section 6 of the *Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899* (WA) was invalid, and if sections 2A(2), 6, and 9 of the *Electoral Distribution Act 1947* (WA), or any of them, were invalid. The Court also had to consider the severability of any invalid provisions.

The Court reasoned that the implication of representative democracy from sections 7 and 24 of the Commonwealth Constitution applied to the Commonwealth Parliament, not to the States. While section 106 of the Commonwealth Constitution preserves State constitutions, it does so subject to the Commonwealth Constitution. However, the implication of representative democracy was not found to extend to the electoral systems of the States. The Court held that the Western Australian legislation did not contravene any constitutional provision.

Consequently, the High Court answered the questions reserved in the case stated. It held that section 6 of the *Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899* (WA) was not invalid. Similarly, sections 2A(2), 6, and 9 of the *Electoral Distribution Act 1947* (WA) were also found not to be invalid, rendering the question of severability unnecessary to answer. Costs were reserved.