In forwarding the attached opinion⁽¹⁾, I desire to say that a case, Ex parte Benson⁽²⁾, was recently decided in the High Court which when properly reported may throw a good deal of light on the question raised in these papers. So far no authoritative report of the judgments has appeared, and the newspaper reports I have seen are not very satisfactory.

The establishment of a Federal Commonwealth and the consequential creation of a Federal citizenship is to my mind inconsistent with the idea of the existence of any power of exclusion (unless of a very limited nature) on the part of the States. Section 92 of the Constitution appears to have been framed to effectuate and protect Federal citizenship. Federal citizenship appears to me to imply a right of access to the Federal Courts, offices, and other institutions, and also a right of access to any part of the Fed-eral Commonwealth for Federal purposes. The existence of State powers of exclusion on the ground of communicable disease does not strike me as being inconsistent with the exercise of Federal rights, and there may possibly be other cases where a temporary interference with Federal rights by a State might be justified on the grounds of public protection.

Until Benson's Case has been fully reported I do not like to formally advise further than appears in the accompanying opinion, but when the report of that case comes out I may be able to advise more strongly and definitely than I am at present.

[Vol. 11,p.18]

(1)Openion No. 489.

(2)R.v. smithers;Ex parte Benson 16 C.L.R. 99.

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

* See also Openions No.511.