Some little time ago an application was received from Mr D.C. McLachlan, late Public Service Commissioner, for the payment of two months' salary under the provisions of Commonwealth Public Service Regulation 89A. The matter was referred to the Crown Solicitor, who, however, advised that in strictness the provisions of regulation 89A were available only while the officer continued to be an officer.

Regulation 89A reads as follows:

1. The Governor-General may, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner, grant to any officer of satisfactory service who is not eligible for the furlough prescribed in Regulation 89, prior to his retirement from the Public Service on or subsequent to his attaining the age of 60 years, leave of absence with full pay as follows:

Service of 16 years and under 20 years-5 months.

"	12	"	16	"	4	"
"	8	"	12	"	3	"
"	4	"	8	"	2	"
Service of less than			4	"	1 month.

2. Or in lieu of such leave the Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Commissioner, grant to the officer a sum equivalent to the pay for such period of leave, or, in the event of the death of any officer who was eligible for but had not been granted the leave prescribed herein, may authorize payment to the dependants of such deceased officer of a sum equivalent to the pay of such officer for the period of leave which he could have been granted under this Regulation.

The Acting Public Service Commissioner submitted the matter for further consideration, pointing out that regulation 89A(2) appeared to apply to cases where the officer had ceased to be an officer, and also drawing attention to the desirable-ness of consistency in the administration of the regulation in question. He further pointed out that in a number of similar cases payment had been made.

The Crown Solicitor, while satisfied that on the strict wording of the regulation his previous advising is correct, recognises the need of uniformity in administration, and suggests that, as the question whether previous official action is to be regarded as having the effect of binding precedent [is involved], the matter be referred to the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General.

I agree that the previous opinion of the Crown Solicitor expresses the correct interpretation of the regulation. I agree with him as to the necessity of uniformity of practice in administration. I am of the opinion that a few cases of interpretation by the Administration ought not to be accepted as a recognised interpretation. If it is intended as a matter of policy to pay such claims in future according to the interpretation adopted by the Public Service Commissioner, a regulation should be definitely passed. The recognition of the interpretation suggested would of necessity as a matter of justice give a right to those who have not received it in the past to make similar claims. Whether the regulation if made should be retrospective is a matter of policy.

[Vol. 15, p. 445]