Legal Opinions

I refer to your letter of 5th June, 1947, requesting my advice on the question of whether the acceptance by you of a seat on the Board of Directors of a certain company would endanger your qualification to remain a member of the Senate. It is noted that the company is in the nature of a holding company, holding the controlling interest in four trading companies, one of which will probably supply, among other customers, Government Departments with some electrical goods.

I refer to your memorandum J. 207/149 with regard to a deed executed by the Hon A.B., MP and purporting to renounce all right to a portion of the Parliamentary allowance becoming due to him.

(2)  It may be convenient to set out the text of the deed in full:

I refer to your memorandum, dated 23rd December, 1946, in regard to the above-mentioned question.

(2)  It appears that the Foreign Office, at the request of the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions, London, made maintenance payments to Australian pensions while in enemy occupied countries. The question has been asked whether it would be in order to reimburse the Foreign Office from arrears of pension due to the pensioners.

(3)  The cases may be divided into two classes, namely:

The following observations are offered as to the probable scope of a placitum in section 51 of the Constitution worded ‘Prices (including rents)’.

SCOPE OF WORD ‘PRICES’.

1. General.

I refer to your letter of 28th June, concerning the letter addressed to His Excellency the Governor-General by Mr. W. Currey, M.L.A. with reference to a petition proposed to be presented to His Excellency by Mr. X.

I am not aware of any rule either of law or constitutional practice which would require His Excellency to afford Mr. X. an opportunity of submitting a petition in person and to make an oral statement in regard thereto.

With reference to your memorandum dated 24th June, 1947, flax is, I understand, an essential raw material in defence equipment, being used for linen fabric for aeroplanes, parachute harness, web equipment, thread for boots and uniforms, canvas for tents, gun covers, hammocks, and fire hose, and for many kinds of cordage. In those circumstances it appears to me to be within the constitutional power of the Commonwealth to foster and develop the flax industry in Australia, so far as is necessary for defence purposes.

I refer to your memorandum, dated 30th November, 1946, concerning the employment of a white crew on the ‘Mangola’.

(2)  It is clear that the ‘Mangola’ is a ‘ship’ within the meaning of the National Security (Maritime Industry) Regulations.

(3)  The Maritime Industry Commission is authorized to make an order applicable to the ‘Mangola’ under regulation 7 in relation to any of the matters specified in paragraphs (a) to (1) of sub-regulation (1) for the purposes mentioned in regulation 2.

The Librarian of the Parliament of the Commonwealth has forwarded to me for advice the following communication:

The question of disposal of records transferred from State to Commonwealth on the occasion of the transfer of departments has been raised recently and I would appreciate a legal opinion on the matter.

The following are the relevant facts:

I refer to your letter dated 22nd July, 1947, in which you asked me to examine the question whether it is constitutionally possible for the Commonwealth to retain control over the flax industry. On 24th June, 1947, the Secretary of your Department, in a memorandum to the Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department, asked that this matter be considered and on 24th July, 1947, a memorandum was sent in reply.¹ I attach a copy of the latter memorandum for convenience of reference.

I refer to your letter herein of the 10th. March, last in which you request advice as to the nationality of X. I assume that X. was of British nationality by virtue of his birth in Australia. It appears that he was granted a certificate of naturalization in Germany in 1940.