Commonwealth Public Service Regulations (Amendment)

Overview

The Statutory Rules 1930, No. 110, which are regulations under the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1930, were enacted in 1930 to address the issue of providing financial assistance to married male officers under the age of twenty-one years within the public service. The Board of Commissioners, authorised under the Act, made these amendments with the approval of the Governor-General, and they came into effect on 1 June 1930. These regulations were approved in the Executive Council on 22 September 1930, with the purpose of offering a financial allowance to married male officers below the age of twenty-one years, equal to the difference between their current salary and the minimum salary for an adult officer of the Fourth Division, until they reach the age of twenty-one. This allowance would be subject to any increases in salary the officer may receive and would cease entirely upon their twenty-first birthday.

Scope and Application

The Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1930, as amended by Statutory Rules 1930, No. 110, applies to male officers within the Commonwealth public service who are under the age of twenty-one years and who are married. The Act specifically provides for an allowance to be paid to these officers, equal to the difference between their salary and the minimum salary payable to a male adult officer of the Fourth Division. This allowance is contingent upon approval from the Board and is subject to reduction by any salary increase the officer receives, ultimately ceasing when the officer reaches the age of twenty-one years. The regulation comes into effect from the 1st of June, 1930, and extends across the Commonwealth, impacting all male married officers within this age bracket and salary division within federal public service roles. This amendment to the existing regulations is subject to the overarching provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act and is applicable nationally, ensuring consistent application across all states and territories under federal governance.

Key Provisions

The main operative section of this legislative instrument, namely Regulation 87B, introduces a provision allowing married male officers under the age of twenty-one years to be paid an allowance. This allowance is intended to compensate for the difference between the officer's current salary and the minimum salary for a male adult officer in the Fourth Division, subject to the Board's approval (87B(1)). This allowance will automatically reduce by the amount of any salary increase granted to the officer and will cease entirely when the officer turns twenty-one years of age (87B(2)). The regulation ensures that the Board has the authority to approve the payment of this allowance and to manage its reduction and cessation based on the officer's salary changes and age. The Act imposes several obligations on the relevant parties, particularly the Board of Commissioners. Firstly, the Board must approve the allowance for a married male officer under twenty-one years before it can be paid (87B(1)). This approval process ensures that the Board exercises its discretion responsibly and in accordance with the spirit of the regulation. Secondly, the Board is required to monitor the officer's salary to adjust the allowance as necessary (87B(2)). This ongoing oversight ensures that the allowance accurately reflects the salary difference and ceases when the officer reaches twenty-one years of age. Additionally, the Board must ensure that the allowance is not paid beyond the stipulated conditions, thereby maintaining the integrity of the financial support system for these officers. Breaches of the provisions outlined in the regulation could lead to various consequences. While the regulation itself does not explicitly state penalties for non-compliance, the overarching Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1930 provides a framework for addressing such breaches. For instance, if the Board fails to properly approve or manage the allowance as required, it could be seen as a failure to perform its duties under the Act, potentially leading to administrative sanctions. In more severe cases, if the Board's actions result in financial mismanagement or fraud, this could lead to criminal charges under the Act, with potential penalties including fines and imprisonment. Civil consequences might also arise if the officer suffers financial disadvantage due to improper handling of the allowance, leading to possible litigation for damages.