In the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 6 May 1910 a writer who signs himself 'Lex' expresses a doubt as to whether the Referendum on the Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Bill has been carried within the meaning of section 128 of the Constitution. He recites that portion of that section which reads-'And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the King's assent', and then proceeds to contend that an elector whose ballot-paper has been rejected as informal is an 'elector voting', and should be counted in ascertaining the total number of electors who voted even if their ballot-papers were ineffective as yes or no votes.

The Chief Electoral Officer has brought the matter under the notice of the Minister for Home Affairs, who has referred it to me for advice.

In the taking of a Referendum it is necessary that there should be certain definite rules under which the votes can be taken and counted, and in order to enable such rules to be provided, section 128 of the Constitution expressly enacts that-'When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes'.

The Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906-1909 prescribes the rules under which the Referendum is taken. Under that Act certain ballot-papers are declared to be informal, and all informal ballot-papers have to be rejected at the scrutiny. Consequently the vote (if any) on an informal ballot-paper is void, and has no effect.

I am of opinion therefore that an elector whose ballot-paper is informal cannot be considered as an elector voting at the Referendum as he did not succeed in casting a legal vote.

The Chief Electoral Officer remarks that a considerable number of the electors whose ballot-papers were rejected as informal deposited their ballot-papers unmaFked. Whatever doubt there may be in other cases, and I think there is some, it is obvious that in these cases the electors made no attempt to vote, and could not be considered as electors voting at the Referendum.

[Vol. 7, p. 460]