STATUTORY RULES.
1942. No. 403.
————
REGULATIONS UNDER THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT 1939-1940.*
I, THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL in and over the Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, hereby make the following Regulations under the National Security Act 1939-1940.
Dated this twenty-second day of September, 1942.
(SGD.) GOWRIE.
Governor General.
By His Excellency’s Command,
for and on behalf of the Minister of State for Defence.
———
Amendments of the National Security (Hide and Leather Industries) Regulations.†
Australian Hide and Leather Industries Board.
1. Regulation 5 of the National Security (Hide and Leather Industries) Regulations is amended—
(a) by omitting the word “seven” (wherever occurring) and inserting in its stead the word “eight”; and
(b) by adding after paragraph (g) of sub-regulation (3.) the following paragraph:—
“; and (h) one shall be the person who is the Controller of Leather and Footwear, Department of Supply and Development.”.
Meetings of the Board.
2. Regulation 8 of the National Security (Hide and Leather Industries) Regulations is amended by omitting from sub-regulation (3.) the word “five” and inserting in its stead the word “six”.
* Notified in the Commonwealth Gazette on , 1942.
† Statutory Rules 1939, No. 153, as amended by Statutory Rules 1940, Nos. 173 and 249; 1941, No. 273; and 1942, Nos. 140 and 322.
By Authority: L. F. Johnston, Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra.
6851.—Price 3d. 25/21.9.1942.
Overview
Statutory Rules 1942 No. 403, enacted under the National Security Act 1939-1940, was introduced by the Commonwealth of Australia to address specific operational adjustments within the hide and leather industries during a time of national emergency. The Governor-General, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, issued these regulations to refine the operations of the Australian Hide and Leather Industries Board, ensuring that the industry could continue to meet national security needs effectively. The primary objective of these regulations was to amend the existing National Security (Hide and Leather Industries) Regulations to reflect changes in the composition and responsibilities of the Board, thereby maintaining efficiency and compliance with the overarching aims of the National Security Act.
Scope and Application
The Regulations under the National Security Act 1939-1940, specifically the amendments to the National Security (Hide and Leather Industries) Regulations, apply to the operations and management of the Australian Hide and Leather Industries Board, which is tasked with regulating the hide and leather industries. These regulations are pertinent to the members of the Board and those involved in the industries they oversee, particularly focusing on the leather and footwear sectors. The scope of these amendments is primarily concerned with the composition and meeting arrangements of the Board, affecting the way in which decisions are made and implemented within the leather industry during this period. Geographically, these regulations pertain to the Commonwealth of Australia, thereby having a national reach across the country. There are no explicit exclusions or thresholds mentioned in these regulations; however, they do modify existing provisions, which indirectly may affect the application of certain rules within the industry. The application of these regulations can be further extended or restricted through subordinate instruments as needed.
Key Provisions
The Statutory Rules 1942, No. 403, made under the National Security Act 1939-1940, bring forth several amendments to the existing National Security (Hide and Leather Industries) Regulations. These amendments are designed to refine the operational framework of the Australian Hide and Leather Industries Board. Firstly, Regulation 5 has been modified by replacing the numerical reference "seven" with "eight" wherever it appears, thereby adjusting the composition of the Board to include an additional member (Regulation 1(a)). Furthermore, an additional paragraph is appended to sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 5, stipulating that one of the members must be the Controller of Leather and Footwear from the Department of Supply and Development (Regulation 1(b)). This change aims to ensure that the Board includes a representative with specific expertise in leather and footwear, thus enhancing the Board’s capability to address industry-specific challenges.
The amendments also extend to Regulation 8, which concerns the quorum requirements for Board meetings. Regulation 8(3) has been revised to require a quorum of six instead of five members for meetings of the Board (Regulation 2). This adjustment signifies a slight increase in the number of Board members necessary to conduct official business, thereby ensuring that a broader range of perspectives and expertise is represented during decision-making processes.
In addition to these structural changes, the Regulations impose specific obligations on the Board members and the Controller of Leather and Footwear. The Board is tasked with the responsibility of overseeing the hide and leather industries within the framework of national security objectives. This includes ensuring compliance with regulations, monitoring industry activities, and making recommendations to the relevant authorities. The inclusion of the Controller of Leather and Footwear as a Board member mandates that this individual contributes to the Board’s efforts in regulating and supporting the leather industry, ensuring that the industry meets the national security requirements while also considering economic and developmental aspects.
Failure to comply with the provisions of these Regulations could result in legal consequences. While the specific offences and penalties are not detailed in the provided text, it is generally understood that breaches of regulations made under the National Security Act 1939-1940 can lead to significant civil or criminal penalties. These penalties may include fines, imprisonment, or other forms of legal sanctions, depending on the severity and nature of the breach. The precise consequences would be determined by the courts in accordance with the broader legislative framework and any relevant case law.