BOUNTIES
COMMONWEALTH COAL SUBSIDIES: COMMONWEALTH POWER TO PROVIDE BOUNTIES TO PARTICULAR QUEENSLAND COAL PRODUCERS TO REDUCE PRICES TO ENABLE PURCHASES BY VICTORIA AND SOUTH AUSTRALIA: COMMONWEALTH POWER TO GRANT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO A PARTICULAR STATE
CONSTITUTION ss 51(iii), 96
Apropos your question on 31 August as to whether there are any practical constitutional means of the Commonwealth Government subsidising Callide coal in order to bring the price down to an extent which would enable Victoria and South Australia to buy coal from the Callide field.
The constitutional powers of the Commonwealth with respect to this matter depend, in a large measure, upon the manner in which assistance is afforded with a view to encouraging the use of coal from Callide.
ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE
WHETHER WOMEN MAY BECOME MEMBERS OF THE PERMANENT AIR FORCE AND CITIZEN AIR FORCE
DEFENCE ACT 1903: AIR FORCE REGULATIONS reg 443
I refer to your memorandum dated 3 July, 1950, seeking advice as to whether—
(a) Women may become members of the Permanent Air Force—
(i) in time of war;
(ii) in time of peace;
(b) women may become members of the Citizen Air Force—
(i) in time of war;
(ii) in time of peace;
(c) it would have been competent to enlist persons in the Citizen Air Force during the recent war.
DEFAMATION
LIABILITY OF COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY FOR DEFAMATION FOR CIRCULATION OF BOOK CONTAINING DEFAMATORY MATERIAL
I return herewith the copy of Frank Hardy’s recent book ‘Power without Glory’ which you forwarded to me in connexion with your oral request for advice on your legal liability as Librarian if you were to circulate copies of the book among borrowers from the Library.
(2) At my request the Crown Solicitor has closely examined the legal questions involved, and I enclose for information a copy of a memorandum from him, with the conclusions of which I fully agree.1
AVIATION
COMPULSORY INSURANCE OF AIRLINE PASSENGERS: COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATIVE POWER TO IMPOSE STRICT LIABILITY ON INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE AIRLINES IN RESPECT OF DEATH OR INJURY FROM AVIATION ACCIDENTS: COMMONWEALTH POWER TO LEGISLATE TO REQUIRE AIRLINE OPERATORS TO INSURE PASSENGERS AGAINST INJURY OR DEATH: WHETHER A COMMONWEALTH LAW WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WARSAW CONVENTION IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES
AIR NAVIGATION ACT 1920: CONVENTION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF CERTAIN RULES RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE BY AIR done at Warsaw on 12 October 1929
I refer to previous correspondence relating to the legal powers of the Commonwealth with regard to the question of compulsory insurance of air passengers against death or injury resulting from an aircraft accident.
I agree that it would be desirable to apply uniformly throughout Australia, so far as possible, Mr. Justice Wolff’s suggestion for the imposition on air transport operators of strict liability in respect both of death and of injury to passengers, and the duty of compulsory insurance against that liability.1
CONTROL OF TEA
COMMONWEALTH POWER TO CONTROL IMPORTATION, PURCHASE, SALE AND EXPORT OF TEA: COMMONWEALTH POWER TO PROVIDE SUBSIDIES TO KEEP DOWN PRICE OF TEA: COMMONWEALTH TRADE AND COMMERCE POWER: SCOPE OF APPROPRIATION POWER: MEANING OF ‘THE PURPOSES OF THE COMMONWEALTH’
CONSTITUTION ss 51(i), (vi), 81: CUSTOMS (IMPORT LICENSING) REGULATIONS: NATIONAL SECURITY (TEA CONTROL) REGULATIONS regs 9, 9A, 10B, 10C, 14
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL: DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATE: PROPOSED REINTRODUCTION OF COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: INTRODUCTION OF TWO SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME BILLS IN THE SAME SESSION: POSSIBLE OBJECTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 166 TO REINTRODUCTION OF BILL: POSSIBLE OBJECTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 166 AT TIME WHEN PRIME MINISTER GIVES NOTICE OF INTENTION TO MOVE FOR LEAVE TO REINTRODUCE BILL: HOUSE OF COMMONS PRACTICE WITH RESPECT TO SAME QUESTION OR BILL BEING PROPOSED TWICE IN SAME SESSION: QUESTIONS THAT ARE ‘THE SAME IN SUBSTANCE’: WHETHER BILL AS PROPOSED TO BE REINTRODUCED DIFFERS IN SUBSTANCE FROM BILL AS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED: WHETHER STANDING ORDER 166 IS INCONSISTENT WITH s 57 OF CONSTITUTION: DOUBLE DISSOLUTION 1914
CONSTITUTION ss 50, 57: COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL: GOVERNMENT PREFERENCE PROHIBITION BILL: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Standing Orders 139, 166
Possible Objection under Standing Orders of House of Representatives.
The position of the Bill1 as previously introduced is as follows:
CONTINENTAL SHELF
RIGHTS IN RELATION TO CONTINENTAL SHELF: POSSIBLE CLAIM BY AUSTRALIA TO CERTAIN RIGHTS IN RELATION TO CONTINENTAL SHELF: MEANING OF ‘CONTINENTAL SHELF’
I refer to your memorandum dated 26th May, 1948, concerning a suggestion that Australia might take action similar to that taken by the United States of America and certain other countries to claim certain rights in relation to the continental shelf.
CONTINENTAL SHELF
RIGHTS IN RELATION TO CONTINENTAL SHELF: POSSIBLE CLAIM BY AUSTRALIA TO CERTAIN RIGHTS IN RELATION TO CONTINENTAL SHELF: WHETHER WATERS COVERING CONTINENTAL SHELF CORRESPOND TO ‘AUSTRALIAN WATERS BEYOND TERRITORIAL LIMITS’: MEANING OF ‘AUSTRALIAN WATERS BEYOND TERRITORIAL LIMITS’
CONSTITUTION s 51(x)
I refer to your memoranda dated 16 February, 1949, and 26 June, 1950, concerning the abovementioned Bill.1 My comments are sought on the suggestion that Australia should, by Proclamation, assume rights over the continental shelf, as has been done by the United States.
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL: DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATE: PROPOSED REINTRODUCTION OF COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL: INTRODUCTION OF TWO SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME BILLS IN THE SAME SESSION: POSSIBLE OBJECTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 166 TO REINTRODUCTION OF COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL: WHETHER SENATE HAS PASSED COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL ‘WITH AMENDMENTS TO WHICH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WILL NOT AGREE’: HOUSE OF COMMONS PRACTICE WITH RESPECT TO SAME QUESTION OR BILL BEING PROPOSED TWICE IN SAME SESSION: QUESTIONS THAT ARE ‘THE SAME IN SUBSTANCE’: WHETHER STANDING ORDER 166 IS INCONSISTENT WITH s 57 OF CONSTITUTION: WHETHER THE SAME BILL MAY BE BEFORE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATE SIMULTANEOUSLY: DOUBLE DISSOLUTION 1914
CONSTITUTION ss 50, 57: COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL: GOVERNMENT PREFERENCE PROHIBITION BILL: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Standing Orders 166, 247
RE-INTRODUCTION OF COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL1
The position of the Bill as previously introduced is as follows:
The Senate, on 21st June [1950], passed the Bill with amendments to which the House of Representatives later refused to agree. The refusal of the House of Representatives became final when, on 23rd June, the House insisted on disagreeing to the amendments insisted on by the Senate.
OATH OF OFFICE BY MINISTERS
OATH OF OFFICE TO BE ADMINISTERED TO MINISTER WHO IS OVERSEAS: CONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE RELATING TO TAKING OF OATH OF OFFICE BY A MINISTER WHO IS ALREADY A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
INSTRUCTIONS PASSED UNDER THE ROYAL SEAL MANUAL AND SIGNET TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA dated 29 October 1900 cl v
The taking of an oath of office by a Minister who is already sworn of the Executive Council is in accordance with constitutional practice, but is not required by law. The oath of office is in no sense a legal pre-requisite to the Minister’s entering upon the duties of his office.
(2) In pursuance of Clause V of the Governor-General’s Instructions, (Commonwealth Statutory Rules 1901–1927, Vol. IV, Page 3632), an oath of office is administered by the Governor-General or by a person authorised by him in that behalf.