At the request of the Attorney-General, I have considered the Departmental file forwarded with your letter of 4th October, 1950, concerning the disposal of wages amounting to £97.8.7 which are held by the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, and which had accrued due to a seaman, X., prior to his death on the 11th January, 1950.

(2)  Division 17 of Part II of the Navigation Act 1912–1942 contains comprehensive provisions relating to the property of deceased seamen. Section 155 provides that the master or owner shall pay and deliver or account for such property, to the Superintendent or as the Minister directs. Section 156 then goes on to prescribe the Minister’s powers with regard to any property of a deceased seaman which comes into his hands. Wages paid to the Superintendent under section 155 should, I think, be regarded as property which comes into the hands of the Minister.

(3)  Section 156(1)(b) applies to the wages held by the Superintendent in respect of X. because the amount thereof does not exceed £100. Consequently, the Minister may pay the money as provided in that section, that is to the widow or child or the person entitled to take out representation of the deceased’s estate. Any person to whom money is paid under section 156 is required to apply it in due course of administration, i.e., the Minister does not pay it to such person for his own beneficial use.

(4)  A de facto wife is not the widow within the meaning of the section, nor, in default of next of kin, would she be entitled to take out representation of the deceased’s estate. It appears from the file that the deceased did not leave a will.

(5)  I can find no section in the Act which gives the Minister power to select a person who is not legally entitled to receive the deceased seaman’s wages and pay those wages to that person.

(6)  If no person within the categories mentioned in Division 17 comes forward to claim the wages, then by section 159 the wages are, at the end of a period of six years after their receipt, paid into Consolidated Revenue. I imagine that it would not be desired to benefit Consolidated Revenue at the expense of the deceased’s de facto wife, and consequently at the end of six years when the money was paid into Consolidated Revenue, there would be no objection to the Commonwealth making an ex gratia payment to the de facto wife. Until the period of six years has elapsed, however, there is the possibility that some legal next of kin of the deceased may come forward and establish a legal right to receive the wages in question.

(7)  However, you may consider that the possibility of some next of kin coming forward is remote, and that an ex gratia payment should be made now in anticipation of the money falling into Consolidated Revenue in the future. The approval of ex gratia payments is a matter for the Treasurer. Should he approve of the payment, it may be well to require the de facto wife to indemnify the Commonwealth against any claim made by other persons. If this course of action is decided upon, then I suggest that the Deputy Crown Solicitor, Sydney, be approached by your officers to draw an appropriate form of indemnity.

(8)  Your departmental papers are returned herewith.