The Chairman of the Repatriation Commission has forwarded me the following minute for advice:

I desire to refer to my interview with you at which you expressed the view that the amending Repatriation Bill would not be retrospective in its operation, but that any expenditure incurred under the amended section 23 could take effect not sooner than the date on which the new Bill became law.

In discussing the matter with the Minister he asked that, for purposes of record, your opinion be obtained in writing. I should be glad if this could be done.

There is another point on which your advice would be appreciated. The proviso to the amended section 23 in the Bill reads:

Provided that no pension shall be payable under this sub-section except in pursuance of a claim made within six months after the commencement of this sub-section.

Does this mean that an entirely new claim must be made under section 23 between the date of commencement of the amendment and six months thereafter, or may the Commission take the initiative and grant at any time the benefit of the provision under the amendment with respect to any claim already lodged, when it is found on review that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of this provision? That is to say, may any claim already lodged be regarded as 'a claim' within the meaning of the proviso?

I am of opinion that the Bil⁽¹⁾ does not authorise the payment of any pension (which but for the Bill would not be payable) in respect of any period prior to the date the Bill commences (i.e. the date of assent).

With regard to the question raised on the proviso, I think the words 'a claim made within six months after the commencement of this sub-section' includes a claim made prior to the commencement of the sub-section.

[Vol. 18, p. 199]

(1)The amending Bill was enacted as the Australian Soldiers