Opinion Number. 514

Subject

COMMONWEALTH PLACES
NATURE OF RIGHTS ACCRUING TO COMMONWEALTH ON ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY : EXTENT TO WHICH STATE JURISDICTION AFFECTED

Key Legislation

CONSTITUTION, s. 52

Date
Client
The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs

The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, asks for advice upon the following memorandum by the Engineer-in-Chief for Commonwealth Railways:

The question has been raised as to what jurisdiction the State Police officials have on Commonwealth property.

It appears to me that the Commonwealth do not possess sovereign rights, but only freehold rights as any private citizen has over purchased or inherited property.

I take it that an arrangement can be made for police patrol and protection on Com-monwealth property by the State Police. What is necessary to be taken to secure this? I presume that if a suitable arrangement is made the Police would thereby have full auth-ority to keep order and arrest for unlawful conduct.

I agree with the view expressed by the Engineer-in-Chief, that the Commonwealth possesses proprietary, not territorial, rights over the railway lands and that they remain within the general jurisdiction of the State, and that (subject to the rights of the Com-monwealth) the State laws run them.

There is however another view, which has the authority of R. v. Bamford (1901) 1 S.R. (N.S.W.) 337.

Section 52 of the Constitution gives the Commonwealth Parliament exclusive power to make laws with respect to 'The seat of government of the Commonwealth, and all places acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes'.

In my opinion this section, as regards property (not territory) acquired by the Com-monwealth, excludes the States merely from passing laws 'with respect to the places'-i.e. special legislation with respect to the places; and does not exclude the general jurisdiction of the State.

But in R. v. Bamford above (decided before the establishment of the High Court) it was held that the State legislative power no longer extended over the locality-though State laws as existing at the time of acquisition by the Commonwealth remained in force till altered by the Federal Parliament. And see Harrison Moore, Commonwealth of Australia, pp. 289, 592. I do not think that the decision (which would make each piece of land acquired by the Commonwealth subject to a code of laws depending on the date of the acquisition of that particular piece of land) can be supported.

[Vol.11,p.377]