Referendums Regulations 1984

The regulations introduce three main operational concepts.

1. Argument length cap (regulation 3). The regulations define the permissible size of an “argument” forwarded under s 9(1) or (3) of the Referendums Act 1983 by prescribing “not more than 2 000 words” as the maximum length. The regulation is terse: it does not define what counts as a word, how to treat annexures, whether formatting counts, nor the consequences of exceeding the limit. The cap is a procedural parameter intended to standardise submissions to the Electoral Commissioner under the s 9 pathway.

2. Prescribed writ form (regulation 4 and Schedule 1 Form 1). The regulations require that the writ for a referendum be in the precise form set out in Schedule 1, Form 1. That form contains:

   • A heading locating the instrument under s 5(1) of the Referendums Act 1983.
   • An instruction to the Electoral Commissioner to “proceed with a referendum” with fields to insert the Act or order that authorises the referendum and the matter to be submitted to electors.
   • Specific slots to fix polling day and the day for the return of the writ.
   • Signature block for the Governor.
   • Notes to assist insertion of the correct references for referendums relating to a Bill (including a reference to an Order in Council under the Constitution Act 1889) or for referendums authorised by another Act.
   • Alternate wording to be used where s 5(3) of the Referendums Act 1983 applies, with explicit instruction to delete or insert the alternate phrasing in the writ.
   • A reverse-side “Indorsement” block stating the Electoral Commissioner’s statement required by s 30(1) of the Referendums Act 1983, with an instruction to “Insert, for each district, the information required.”

3. Integration points with parent statutes and reprint mechanics. The regulations explicitly reference particular sections of the Referendums Act 1983 and the Constitution Act 1889 in their notes, and they have been subject to multiple amendments and reprints (compilation table). The regulatory instrument functions as an enabling procedural adjunct to the Referendums Act 1983 rather than as a stand-alone substantive code.

Each concept is narrow and operational: the regulations do not create offences, set fees, allocate funds, or otherwise establish substantive obligations beyond the form of the writ and the length of a particular class of submission. The limits of the regulations are visible in the instrument’s brevity and the fact that several procedural consequences and definitions remain in the principal Act rather than in these regulations.

The regulations operate on three principal actors and a defined class of submissions.

1. The Governor. The writ template in Schedule 1 is addressed to the Electoral Commissioner but requires the Governor’s signature. The form sets fields for the Governor to fix the polling day and the day for return of the writ and to sign and date the writ. Mechanically the Governor decides the polling day and the return day to be entered on the prescribed writ; the regulations require those decisions to be recorded in the statutory form (Schedule 1 Form 1, including the Governor signature block).

2. The Electoral Commissioner. The writ is directed to the Electoral Commissioner and requires the Electoral Commissioner to “proceed with a referendum” when a properly completed writ is issued under s 5(1) of the Referendums Act 1983 (Form 1 header). The reverse-side indorsement is signed and dated by the Electoral Commissioner and must contain the statement required by s 30(1) of the Act “in relation to the referendum held under this writ” with the instruction to “Insert, for each district, the information required.” Regulation 3’s 2 000-word cap explicitly limits the size of submissions forwarded to the Electoral Commissioner under s 9(1) or (3), so the Commissioner is the recipient and processor of those capped submissions.

3. Persons or organisations forwarding arguments under s 9(1) or (3) of the Referendums Act 1983. The regulation directly constrains the length of any “argument” submitted to the Electoral Commissioner under those subsections to 2 000 words (r 3). That affects proponents and opponents who intend to provide material to the Commissioner for the purposes contemplated in s 9; they must prepare submissions within the stated word limit and ensure any attachments or statements required by the principal Act are included in the form required by the regulations (for example, the requirement in Schedule 1 that “the text of which is attached” or “a statement of which is attached” as relevant).

Secondary or incidental actors:

• Parliamentary drafters and Government legal advisers who prepare the writ content and ensure correct cross-references (for instance, the Order in Council or Act title to be inserted) will be affected by the need to use Form 1 and its notes where s 5(3) or the Constitution Act 1889 references apply.
• Electoral staff responsible for printing and distributing referendum materials will be affected by any operational consequences of the 2 000-word cap, in so far as the cap alters the size or formatting of material the Commissioner must handle.

The regulations do not create new categories of regulated persons beyond these groups, and they do not attach specific penalties or fees to non-compliance within their text. The principal Act (referenced throughout) likely contains the broader regulatory framework; these regulations impose two concrete constraints on specified actors: the Governor must use the prescribed writ form to command the Electoral Commissioner to proceed, and persons supplying arguments under s 9 must restrict those arguments to no more than 2 000 words.

The regulations create limited, precise duties and record rights as required by form and procedure. The text of the regulations sets these in two categories: duties that arise from the prescribed writ form and duties that arise from the argument length limitation.

Duties arising from the writ form (regulation 4, Schedule 1 Form 1)

• Duty to use the statutory form: Regulation 4 requires “The writ for a referendum shall be in the form of Form 1 in Schedule 1.” That is a mandatory prescription for the form of the writ; the Governor’s office and the officials preparing writs must populate the prescribed fields and adhere to the notes when relevant.
• Governor’s formal duty to fix dates and sign the writ: The form provides slots for fixing polling day and the day for the return of the writ, and a signature block for the Governor dated accordingly. The Governor’s act of completing and signing the writ brings the formal requirement to proceed with a referendum to the Electoral Commissioner.
• Electoral Commissioner’s duty to proceed: The writ is addressed to “the Electoral Commissioner” and instructs the Commissioner “to proceed with a referendum.” That creates an operational duty on the Commissioner when a valid writ in the prescribed form is received, subject to the wider statutory framework in the Referendums Act 1983 (the regulation’s language expressly references s 5(1) of the Act in the Form header).
• Electoral Commissioner’s reporting / indorsement duty: The reverse of the writ includes an “Indorsement” block for the Electoral Commissioner to make the statement required by s 30(1) of the Referendums Act 1983 “in relation to the referendum held under this writ.” The form instructs the Commissioner to insert, for each district, the information required. This creates an administrative duty to complete the return/indorsement in a particular way once the referendum has been conducted.

Duties and rights arising from argument length (regulation 3)

• Duty to comply with the word limit: Regulation 3 prescribes that an argument forwarded to the Electoral Commissioner under s 9(1) or (3) of the Referendums Act 1983 shall consist of not more than 2 000 words. Any person preparing material under those subsections has a duty to ensure the submission does not exceed that length.
• Procedural right to submit an argument: The regulation presupposes the right (created by s 9 of the principal Act) of interested parties to forward arguments to the Electoral Commissioner, but places an express limit on their length. The regulation itself does not create the right; it only circumscribes a submission that the Act enables.

Boundaries and omissions in the regulations

• The regulations are silent as to enforcement mechanisms or penalties for exceeding the 2 000-word limit. They do not specify whether the Electoral Commissioner must reject non-complying documents, truncate them, or accept them and treat the excess as surplus. The stated duty is the word limit; the operational response to non-compliance would be determined by practice, the Electoral Commissioner’s instructions under the Act, or other instruments not contained in this text.
• The regulations do not define “argument”, “word”, or whether attachments such as the “text of” or “statement of” an Act/Bill (referenced in the Form notes) are included within the 2 000-word cap. Consequently, those preparing submissions must look to the principal Act and any Electoral Commission guidelines for further clarification.

Rights implicit in the form

• The form preserves the right of the Governor to choose the polling day and return date within the constraints of the Referendums Act (e.g. the alternative wording required where s 5(3) applies).
• The form preserves the Electoral Commissioner’s right and obligation to record the statutory indorsement under s 30(1).

In short, the regulations impose narrow formal duties: use the prescribed writ form; adhere to its notes for correct insertion of references and alternative wording; limit arguments submitted under s 9 to 2 000 words; and, by implication of the form, complete the Electoral Commissioner’s indorsement mandated by s 30(1). Rights to submit arguments and to have the Commissioner proceed with a referendum remain governed by the Referendums Act itself; the regulations impose procedural bounds rather than novel substantive entitlements.

The regulations themselves are silent on penalties and do not create or specify enforcement mechanisms within their text. There are three concrete observations from the instrument:

1. No penalty provisions in the Regulations. The regulations contain no express offences, fines or specified sanctions for failure to comply with the 2 000-word limit in regulation 3, nor do they specify consequences for failing to use the prescribed form in regulation 4 or Schedule 1. The instrument prescribes process and form but does not itself attach statutory penalties to non-compliance.

2. Enforcement likely resides in the principal Act or administrative practice. Because the regulations operate by reference to the Referendums Act 1983 (for example reg 3 applies to arguments forwarded under s 9(1) or (3), and Form 1 references s 5(1) and s 30(1)), any legal consequences for non-compliance with the Act’s processes would be found in the principal Act. The regulations do not restate or replicate enforcement provisions from the Act; they supplement it with form and a length cap. To determine statutory penalties or judicial remedies for, say, an invalid writ or improper publication of argument material, one must consult the Referendums Act 1983 itself.

3. Operational enforcement is an administrative matter. The Electoral Commissioner, as the recipient of the s 9 submissions and the addressee of the writ, will be the practical actor charged with dealing with any submissions that do not conform to the 2 000-word limit or with writs that do not follow the prescribed form. The regulation does not tell the Commissioner whether to reject, truncate, or accept non-complying material. Therefore enforcement in practice will be by administrative decision and procedure established by the Electoral Commission under the statutory authority of the Referendums Act and relevant administrative rules or guidelines.

Consequences of regulatory silence

• The absence of specified penalties in the regulations creates room for discretionary operational responses, which may increase uncertainty for submitters preparing arguments under s 9. The regulations’ silence on the treatment of non-complying material means interested parties should seek procedural guidance from the Electoral Commissioner or consult the Referendums Act for any enforcement provisions.
• Similarly, there is no indication in the regulations that the Governor or other officials face statutory sanction for deviations from the form; the form requirement is mandatory in wording, but how deviations are remedied in practice (for example whether a writ would be treated as invalid) is a matter for the principal Act and the courts, not these regulations.

In short, the regulations impose limits and prescribe a form, but they do not themselves set out enforcement penalties. That makes the operational enforcement posture administrative and dependent on the Referendums Act and any discretion exercised by the Electoral Commissioner or other decision-makers under the Act.

The regulations are explicitly designed as subordinate instruments to the Referendums Act 1983 and to operate in points of contact with other statutory provisions. The text contains direct cross-references and notes that show how they interact.

Link to the Referendums Act 1983

• The regulations repeatedly reference specific sections of the principal Act. Regulation 3 is expressly tied to “an argument forwarded to the Electoral Commissioner under section 9(1) or (3) of the Referendums Act 1983.” The writ form is titled to indicate it operates under s 5(1) of the Act and the reverse indorsement specifically references the statement required by s 30(1). The Alternate wording in Form 1 references s 5(3). Thus the regulations are procedural adjuncts that must be read together with the particular sections of the Referendums Act they reference. The substantive authorities (who has the right to lodge arguments, how the Electoral Commissioner must publish or handle them, what constitutes a valid writ, and the legal effect of an indorsement) remain located in the principal Act.

Reference to the Constitution Act 1889

• The notes to Form 1 instruct that, “in the case of a referendum as to a Bill, [insert] a reference to the Order in Council made under the Constitution Act 1889 fixing the day for taking of the votes…” That indicates an operational interaction where a constitutional Order in Council under the Constitution Act 1889 may be the primary instrument fixing the poll date for certain referendums, and the writ form must incorporate that reference when appropriate. The regulations therefore accommodate a constitutional mechanism for fixing polling dates by allowing an alternative phrasing and insertion of the relevant Order in Council reference.

Reprints Act 1984 and reprint mechanics

• The document being used is itself a reprint compiled under the Reprints Act 1984, and the regulations note deletions and omissions “under the Reprints Act 1984 s. 7(4)(e).” The compilation table details amendment instruments and gazettal dates, so the regulations interact with the Reprints Act for publication, amendment history, and reprint processes. Practically, users must ensure they consult the current reprint or the Gazette records to identify amendments to the regulations (the compilation table records amendments in 1992, 2004 and 2008).

Administrative law and Electoral Commission procedures

• Because the regulations are procedural and administered by the Electoral Commissioner, their operation intersects with administrative law principles and the Electoral Commission’s own rules, guidelines and practices. For example, the 2 000-word cap in reg 3 will be operationalised by the Electoral Commissioner’s processes for receiving, vetting, printing and distributing argument material. The regulations do not spell out these processes, so operational detail will be found in the Electoral Commission’s administrative documents consistent with the Referendums Act.

No conflict resolution clause

• The regulations do not contain a clause explaining how conflicts between the regulations and the principal Act are to be resolved; standard statutory interpretation principles apply and the principal Act will prevail if there is inconsistency. The regulations’ frequent textual cross-references imply they were drafted to avoid inconsistency and to slot into the Act’s framework.

In summary, the regulations function as a procedural add-on to the Referendums Act 1983 and work in tandem with the Constitution Act 1889 where Orders in Council are involved. They rely on reprint and amendment machinery of the Reprints Act 1984 for their published form and history. For substantive or enforcement matters that the regulations do not cover, reference to the principal Act and to Electoral Commission practice is necessary.

The compilation table included in the reprint provides the full amendment and reprint record up to the reprint date (20 November 2009). The legislative history recorded in the compilation table and the marginal notes in the regulations show the following sequence.

Original instrument and commencement

• The Referendums Regulations 1984 were originally made and gazetted on 3 February 1984 (Gazette 3 Feb 1984 p. 301‑2) and commenced on the same date.

Amendments and reprints

• Referendums Amendment Regulations 1992, gazetted 28 February 1992 (Gazette 28 Feb 1992 p. 1071‑3) , recorded in the compilation table as an amendment instrument.
• Reprint 1: the regulations were reprinted as at 16 April 2004; that reprint includes the earlier amendments up to that date.
• Referendums Amendment Regulations 2004, gazetted 24 December 2004 (Gazette 24 Dec 2004 p. 6249‑52) , the marginal notes show that regulation 2 was deleted and several insertions and replacements were made on that date (for instance, Form 1 was inserted on 24 Dec 2004). The marginal notes attached to regulations 3 and 4 indicate “Regulation 3 amended: Gazette 24 Dec 2004 p. 6249” and “Regulation 4 amended: Gazette 24 Dec 2004 p. 6249.”
• Referendums Amendment Regulations 2008, gazetted 21 November 2008 (Gazette 21 Nov 2008 p. 4924‑5) with commencement for r 1 and r 2 on 21 Nov 2008 and the rest of the regulations on 22 Nov 2008. This amendment is recorded in the compilation table (and the reprint as at 20 Nov 2009 incorporates this amendment).
• Reprint 2: the regulations were reprinted as at 20 November 2009, and the reprint includes the amendments summarised above.

Omissions and deletions

• Regulation 2 was deleted (the marginal note says “[2. Deleted: Gazette 24 Dec 2004 p. 6249.]”).
• Regulation 5 is omitted under the Reprints Act 1984 s. 7(4)(e) (the marginal note says “[5. Omitted under the Reprints Act 1984 s. 7(4)(e).]”).
• Form 2 is omitted under the Reprints Act 1984 s. 7(4)(e), as recorded in Schedule 1.

Insertions

• Form 1 in Schedule 1 was inserted by Gazette 24 Dec 2004 p. 6250‑1, as shown by the marginal note “Form 1 inserted: Gazette 24 Dec 2004 p. 6250‑1.”

Implications for users

• The compilation table and marginal notes show the instrument has been edited and reprinted multiple times. Users relying on these regulations should consult the latest reprint (the reprint here is as at 20 November 2009) or the current Western Australian legislation database to confirm whether further amendments have been made after that date.

The amendment history in the compilation table therefore records a modest sequence of procedural updates and reprints, with the most notable substantive addition being the insertion of the detailed Form 1 in December 2004 and the 2 000-word cap appearing in reg 3 as amended on the same date.

The regulations as presented contain no record of litigation and the reprint’s “Notes” section does not list any judicial decisions interpreting these regulations. The instrument itself is procedural and tightly focused on form and word limits, and the reprint does not include case law or annotations.

What the reprint shows

• The reprint contains the text of the regulations, Schedule 1 Form 1, marginal notes about amendments and omissions, and a compilation table. It does not contain references to litigation or to court decisions that have affected the interpretation or application of the regulations.

What this means in practice

• Any litigation relating to the issues covered by these regulations would likely be focused on interpretation or validity questions tied to the Referendums Act 1983 (for example, disputes about whether a writ was validly issued, whether the Electoral Commissioner complied with statutory duties, or the treatment of argument material). Those substantive disputes would be addressed to the principal Act’s provisions, with the regulations forming parts of the factual and procedural matrix. The regulations themselves do not record judicial interpretation, and there is no litigation history included in this reprint.

How to discover any judicial treatment

• To determine whether courts have considered these particular regulations, a search of case law databases for decisions mentioning the “Referendums Regulations 1984” or specific regulation numbers (r 3 or r 4) would be required. That search is outside the scope of the regulations text and the compilation table, and the reprint does not provide any pointers to relevant cases.

In summary, the reprint contains no litigation history; the regulations are procedural and short, and any adjudicative treatment is not recorded in the document before you.

The regulations are short but contain several practical traps for users who rely on assumed detail rather than consulting the principal Act and Electoral Commission practice. The notable “gotchas” are procedural ambiguity, formatting dependency, and reliance on the Referendums Act for enforcement and definitions.

1. Word-count ambiguity (regulation 3). The regulation mandates “not more than 2 000 words” for an argument under s 9(1) or (3). It does not define:

   • What counts as a word (are hyphenated terms one word or two; do numbers or URLs count as single or multiple words).
   • Whether footnotes, headings, endnotes, tables, charts, annexures or appendices are included in the 2 000-word total.
   • How to treat non-text material (maps, images, scanned documents). Absent a definition in the regulations or an express direction in the Form notes, the practical interpretation will be set by the Electoral Commissioner’s administrative rules. Parties should not assume natural-language intuitions about word counts are authoritative; they should seek clarification from the Commissioner.

2. No prescribed consequence for exceeding the limit. The regulations do not say what will happen if a submission exceeds 2 000 words. There is no instruction to reject, truncate or return the submission. That creates uncertainty for submitters and potential for inconsistent treatment. Parties who might risk non-compliance should obtain advance clearance from the Electoral Commission.

3. Form strictness and alternate wording (Schedule 1 Form 1). Regulation 4 requires the writ “shall be in the form of Form 1.” The notes to Form 1 include alternative wording where s 5(3) applies and precise instructions for insertions:

   • For referendums as to a Bill, the form requires a reference to an Order in Council made under the Constitution Act 1889 that fixes the day for taking votes.
   • For other referendums, the title of the authorising Act must be inserted. Small mistakes in these insertions (e.g. wrong Order in Council reference, wrong Bill title, omitting “the text of which is attached” or “a statement of which is attached” as applicable) risk procedural challenges to the writ’s validity. The regulations themselves do not state the effect of such drafting errors; those consequences will be determined under the Referendums Act or by the courts.

4. Dependence on s 30(1) content. The indorsement block requires the Electoral Commissioner’s statement “required by the Referendums Act 1983 section 30(1) in relation to the referendum held under this writ” and instructs “Insert, for each district, the information required.” The regulations do not specify what that information is. Users must consult s 30(1) of the principal Act to ensure that the required details are provided. Failure to include the correct details on the indorsement may create reporting or record-keeping issues.

5. Omitted and deleted provisions in the reprint. Regulation 2 has been deleted and regulation 5 omitted under the Reprints Act. Form 2 is omitted. If users consult older versions of the regulations or copies that predate the 2004 or 2008 amendments, they may encounter different forms or additional provisions. Reliance on an out-of-date form or drafting approach risks administrative invalidity.

6. No internal guidance on timing and format for s 9 submissions. The regulations fix a word limit but do not impose deadlines for when arguments under s 9 must be lodged relative to the writ or the poll, nor do they specify printing or distribution arrangements. Timing and format obligations are therefore governed by the Referendums Act and any Electoral Commission directions, not by these regulations. Parties should not assume the word limit is their only procedural obligation.

7. Reprint date may not be current. The compilation table shows the reprint as at 20 November 2009. Users must check whether subsequent amendments have been made after that date. Using the Form or the word limit without confirming currency risks non-compliance with later changes.

In sum, the practical risks flow less from contentious substantive obligations and more from procedural precision and uncertainty where the regulations delegate or remain silent. The main operational “gotchas” are ambiguity about how the word count is measured, absent consequences for breaches, strictness of the prescribed writ form and its required insertions, dependence on the principal Act for required indorsement content, and the need to ensure one is consulting the current reprint.

Compliance under these regulations requires attention to three things: use the prescribed writ form exactly, ensure any s 9 submissions adhere to the 2 000-word cap, and cross-check requisite content against the Referendums Act 1983 and any Electoral Commission directions. The steps below are practical and grounded in the text.

1. Use Form 1 as the writ template (r 4; Schedule 1).

   • When preparing a writ under s 5(1) of the Referendums Act 1983, use the exact language and structure of Form 1 in Schedule 1. Populate the field that inserts the enabling instrument: for a referendum as to a Bill, insert the relevant Order in Council made under the Constitution Act 1889; for other referendums insert the title of the Act by which the referendum is authorised or required (Form 1 notes (1)(a) and (1)(b)).
   • Fix the polling day and the day for return of the writ in the slots provided. If s 5(3) of the Referendums Act applies, delete the polling-day slot language and insert the alternative wording supplied in note (3) to Form 1.
   • Ensure the Governor’s signature and date are completed on the writ in the Governor block. That step is necessary to create an instruction to the Electoral Commissioner.

2. Prepare the Electoral Commissioner’s indorsement.

   • On the reverse of the writ, complete the indorsement required by s 30(1) of the Referendums Act 1983. The reverse contains an instruction “[Insert, for each district, the information required.]” Consult s 30(1) of the principal Act to determine what specific district-level information is required and insert it as specified.
   • The indorsement must be dated and signed by the Electoral Commissioner.

3. Conform s 9 submissions to the 2 000-word limit (regulation 3).

   • Any argument forwarded to the Electoral Commissioner under s 9(1) or (3) must be no more than 2 000 words. Prepare submissions with that cap in mind. Where possible, prepare a word-count certificate or other demonstration of compliance so that the Electoral Commissioner can readily verify the submission’s conformity.
   • Seek clarifying guidance from the Electoral Commission about whether appendices, annexures, tables, images, footnotes or attachments are included in the 2 000-word measure. Because the regulation does not define “words” or state whether annexures are included, secure a ruling from the Commissioner or follow the Commission’s published practice.

4. Check the version of the regulations in force.

   • The compilation table shows amendments and reprints up to 20 November 2009, including the insertion of Form 1 in December 2004 and amendments in 2008. Before acting on the form or word limit, check the current reprint on the Western Australian legislation website or the Gazette to ensure no subsequent changes have been made.

5. Use precise drafting to avoid procedural defects.

   • Follow the Form 1 note instructions precisely: insert “the text of which is attached” or “a statement of which is attached” where required for referendums on a Bill, as set out in Schedule 1 note (2)(a), or provide the question or statement for referendums authorised by another Act as required by note (2)(b). Where s 5(3) applies, use the alternative wording specified in note (3).
   • Small drafting errors in the writ’s inserted references or in the phrasing required by the Form may raise challenges about the writ’s validity; confirm the correct Order in Council references and Act titles in advance.

6. Liaise with the Electoral Commission for operational questions.

   • Because the regulations do not specify the treatment of non-complying submissions, the precise definition of a “word”, or the format for attachments, obtain the Electoral Commission’s procedural rules or directions. Where the Commission publishes forms, word-count guidance or deadlines for s 9 material, follow those directions.

7. Document compliance steps.

   • Maintain records showing the word count of any arguments lodged under s 9, the attachments provided, the date of lodging, and any correspondence with the Electoral Commissioner about acceptability. Keep copies of the completed writ and the Commissioner’s indorsement as returned under the form.

Applying these steps will meet the literal requirements of the regulations: use the prescribed writ form (r 4; Schedule 1 Form 1), have the Governor fix and record the poll and return dates, ensure the Electoral Commissioner completes the indorsement mandated by s 30(1), and keep all arguments under the 2 000-word limit (r 3). Because the regulations leave implementation detail to the principal Act and the Electoral Commissioner, practical compliance requires consultation of the Referendums Act 1983 for substantive obligations and the Electoral Commission for administrative guidance.