The Assistant Commissioner of Pensions has forwarded, for advice, the following memorandum:

Adverting to the opinion given by you on 21 September last to the effect that an allowance of £3 per week received by Rev. A.B., a claimant for old-age pension, from the Australasian Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists should be regarded as 'Income' within the meaning of section 4 of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, I am forwarding herewith copy of a letter received from Mr B. in which he contends that the ruling is 'at variance with a former ruling ... in favour of . . . the Methodist denomination, whose Church allowance is exempt . . . ' under paragraph (b) of the definition of 'Income' in section 4 of the Act.

1. The earlier ruling to which Mr B. refers is evidently your opinion of 31 July 1911 relating to payments from the Methodist Supernumerary and Ministers' Widows' Fund.
2. There would appear to be an essential element of difference between the two funds referred to by Mr B. However, as it is just possible that your opinion of 31 July 1911 may be affected by the opinion given on 9 July 1914, by the then Attorney-General, Sir William Irvine, in connection with the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Employees' Fund and the Tasmanian State Teachers' Superannuation Fund, I am referring the matter to you for further advice, particularly as to whether amounts received by pension claimants from the Methodist Supernumerary and Ministers' Widows' Fund should still be regarded as coming within exception (b) of the definition of 'Income' in section 4 of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act 1908-1920.

I see no reason to vary the opinion expressed by me on 21 September 1920.⁽¹⁾

As regards the question whether the opinion given by me on 31 July 1911⁽²⁾, with regard to payments from the Methodist Supernumerary and Ministers' Widows' Fund, is affected by Sir William Irvine's opinion of 9 July 1914⁽³⁾,that, I think, depends on the nature of the Fund-which the papers at present before me do not disclose.

The fund in which Mr B. is interested appears to be one supported by voluntary contribution from persons not necessarily of the class to which the beneficiaries belong. That being so it is not an association of, and supported by, persons ultimately entitled to benefits.

I adhere to my previous opinion that the payments are not within exception (b) and should be treated as income.

[Vol. 18, p. 203]

(1)Opinion No. 1005.

(2)In this opinion [Vol.9, p. 101], not published in Vol.1, Mr (as he then was) Garran, as Secretary, Attorney-General