Mr A.B. was a candidate at the last Senate election in the State of New South Wales.

He has failed to file a return of his electoral expenses under the provisions of Part XIV of the Electoral Act 1902-1909.

Mt B.'s excuse for non-compliance is as follows:

Referring to a "Return of my Electoral Expenses' in connection with my candidature at the recent Senate Election of this State I regret to inform you that it is impossible for me to furnish the required statement as I cannot conscientiously swear to the amount of my expenses, for it was not until after the campaign that I made an effort to ascertain how the amount of expenses stood. I am unable to earmark the items for business and travelling expenses. Of course, as you will readily understand, I could not have canvassed this great State unless I made it compatible with my business. That was made the main feature of my tour, the adjustment of agencies, and personal interviews with my agents, in this way my election and business expenses became inextricably mixed; at the same time I can truthfully state that I have on no occasion expended any money for any purpose not authorised by the Act.

The Chief Electoral Officer, in a minute dated 20 September 1910, says that it has not been the practice in the past to prosecute unsuccessful candidates who have failed to furnish returns. The Minister for Home Affairs has directed that the papers in the matter be referred to me.

It is not so important in the case of an unsuccessful candidate that he should file an account of his electoral expenses as it is in the case of a successful candidate. Still Parliament has not thought fit to discriminate between them, but has thrown the obligation of making a return upon all candidates.

Mr B.'s letter does not offer any valid excuse whatever for his failure to comply with the law.

I think that the return is made necessary in the public interest, and that the Department would be justified in taking action if it thought fit to do so.

Whether the Department should take action or not in this case is a matter for the Department. It is not usual to depart from a practice until there is some ground for thinking the practice is not a good one. If the Department considers that it should take action in all cases where a contravention of a section passed in the public interest is brought before it, then I think it should take action in this case.⁽¹⁾

[ Vol. 8, p. 116]

(1) On resubmission of the papers for advice whether it was imperative to take action in this matter, Mr
Hughes, on 5 November 1910, in a minute endorsed on the opinion, stated that *. . . it is for the
Department of Home Affairs and no other to decide whether any action and if so what, should be taken