A deputation of interstate representatives at a Conference for the Advancement of the Blind waited on the Minister for External Affairs and amongst other things brought under the notice of the Minister that blind persons travelling from one State to another State by sea were compelled to give bonds and undertakings for their return although nothing of the kind was attempted when they travelled by train.

The Minister, in reply to the deputation on this point, said as follows:

I do not know exactly what the law is on the subject. The question has never been raised before. You inform me that as far as the train is concerned, you are quite free: there is no embargo. If that is so, I should take it that there will be no embargo by boat. Person-ally, I can quite understand that shipping companies would not care for the blind to travel by their boats, unless a guide or someone was in charge of them. Before Federation each State had its own Act, and you could quite understand one State placing restrictions on blind persons entering from another State. For instance, SO or any number of blind people might enter from one State to another and become a charge on that State. I have no doubt that that was the reason why, prior to Federation, the embargo was placed in the Acts. I shall have the matter looked into, and see whether under our Constitution that embargo can be removed.

I do not think that that embargo does exist since Federation. I am, however, speaking only as a layman. A State would be quite right in objecting to someone coming into it, who would be a cost to the community. Only the other day there was a case before the High Court in which some criminal was refused admission into New South Wales.⁽¹⁾

Mr Shirley: But the judgment went against the Government.

Minister: I do not think a State is right in saying it will exclude a man, who is an Aus-tralian, from going from one part to another.

Mr Shirley: We are excluded, but I think it must be an old State Act that has got lost sight of.

Minister: Say for instance 20 or 30 men were blinded by an accident in Victoria; it would, perhaps, be an unjust thing that they should go to New South Wales and have to be kept by the New South Wales people. However, I will look into the matter, and see whether it is possible to do anything to remove the embargo.

Mr Campbell: It may not be the law, but we have not the money to test it.

The papers have now been forwarded to me for advice as to whether the embargo complained of really exists and if so whether under the Constitution it can be removed.

I am of opinion that there is no legal embargo on blind persons passing from one State to another State.

After the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce and inter-course among the States became, by virtue of section 92 of the Constitution, absolutely free.

Probably the States still possess some powers of exclusion, but in my opinion those powers are of a very limited nature and are not sufficient to justify the exclusion of a person merely on the ground that he is blind. The power (if any) might extend to the exclusion of persons likely to become a public charge, but in view of the fact that blind persons are eligible for invalid or old-age pensions under Commonwealth law the likeli-hood of their becoming public charges under State law is to say the least very remote.

I am also of opinion that the alleged practice of some steamship owners of requiring blind persons to furnish a bond or undertaking to return before granting a passage is unreasonable.

In the event of any State attempting to enforce any alleged power of exclusion against any blind citizen of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth could, if supplied with information of the facts, take up the case on behalf of the person in question in order to uphold the Constitution. I do not see how the Commonwealth could take any action to obtain a decision of the High Court on the question unless a case justifying legal action actually arises.

As regards steamship owners, I think they would discontinue asking for bonds or undertakings if it were made clear to them that the States' power of exclusion no longer exists.

[Vol. 11, p. 20 ]

(1)R.v. Smithers; Ex parte Benson 16 C.L.R.99.

(2)This openion is unsigned in the Openion Book, but it is attributed to Mr Grahan.

* See also Openions Nos. 490,511.