UNDESIRABLES

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 271, 21 August 1925, Page 10

UNDESIRABLES

POWERS OF DEPORTATION AN ANIMATED DEBATE A MINISTER’S PERTINENT QUESTIONS There were some lively passages between the Leader of the Labour Partv and the Minister of Justice (Sir James Parr) in the House of Representatives yesterday during the second reading of the Undesirable Immigrants Exclusion Amendment Bill, which has been introduced by Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central). Mr. Fraser said the Bill proposed to amend what he termed the panic legislation passed in 1919. Its object was to repeal section 5 of the principal Act, which, he said, empowered the Attorney-General to prohibit the landing of persons deemed bv him, htid him alone, to be undesirable; section 6, which authorised the Attornev-Gen-arl, by direction of the Governor-General-in-Council, to order disaffected or disloval persons to leave New Zealand; section 7, which empowered the Attorney-General to order the arrest and, if thought necessary, the detention in custody pending deportation of any person proposed to be deported; section 8, which enacted that a deported person was not entitled to return to New Zealand without permission in writing from the AttorneyGeneral; and section 13, which denied the right of trial by jury to any person accused of an offence under the principal Act and extended the period during which an information can be laid against any alleged offender. Mr. Fraser said that the measure would not open the door to those with criminal records, or. who had been objectionable regarding the observance oi law in other countries. The member for Wellington Central quoted Magna Charta in support of the Bill. He quoted the case of Noel Lyons, the young Australian seaman, who was recently deported as an instance of the repressive nature of the present law. Mr. W. D. Lvsnar (Gisborne) contended that Lyons had been treated according to his deserts. He considered that any citizen who was. convicted of disloyalty or sedition should be debarred all civic and political rights. That would act as a deterrent. Mr. Holland and Trotsky. Mr. Holland (Leader of the Labour Party) had discoursed at length on the iniquity of turning away new arrivals without giving them an opportunity of appealing to the ordinary law of the land, when Sir James Parr interjected: “Would you exclude Mr. Trotsky from New Zealand?” Mr. Hol’and: The hon. Minister, if he had read history, would know that Mr. Trotsky was recently expelled from Russia for expressing himself too freely. “But would you exclude him from New Zealand ?” pressed the Minister. Mr. Holland: I certainly would not ex-. elude him from New Zealand. lam not sure that there are some people in New Zealand who cannot compare with him This reply produced a fusilade of interjections from the Government benches, aid si’Jence did not reign for several seconds. Mr. Holland (evidently replying to one of the remarks) : If he were in this country and broke the law he would be dealt with. Letting Revolutionaries In. Sir Jamess Parr: Would you let any revolutionary in ? Mr. Holland: “If a Labour Government were in power and administered the law in its entirety I am not sure that some gentlemen would not have to get out.” Mr. Holland said that if Sir James Parr had read the Bill he would see that it referred to British subjects only, “I have read the Bill,” said the Minister. “I have it here on my desk.” Mr. Holland: But you haven’t read it! Sir James Parr: I will show you that I have, Mr. Holland proceeded to talk on the pilnciples of British liberty and justice, and again fell foul of Sir James Parr, in accusing the Minister of “mouth loyalty.” “How did you stand over that in the war?” demanded the Minister with some heat. The Speaker called for order. Mr. Holland engaged in a somewhat lengthy reply, during which he maintained that he had resisted the Russianfsation of New Zealand during the war, and had denounced the abrogation of trial by jury and the enforcement of conscription by legislative enactment. He launched a general charge against supporters of the Reform Party of having forced up the price of scheelite, wool, skins, and other war necessaries to the British Government while expressing extreme loyalty to the Mother Country. A Natural Right. Sir James Parr said a good deal of argument had been advanced about the liberty of speech. The Bill before the House dealt with immigration, and he would ask the House to agree with him when he laid down the principle that every country had the natural and inalienable right to say who should be admitted to free citizenship within its territory. That was the issue before the House and not free speech. Every country, nowadays, was passing legislation which placed the power not in the hands of juries, because that would be absurd, but in the hands of the Executive, to decide whether the habitual criminal, the revolutionary, and the exponent of I.W.'W. doctrines should be accorded the rights and privileges of British citizenship. The main complaint made with regard to the legislation under review was that power to exclude or deport was vested in one person. That was' scarcely the point. The matter rested with the Gov-ernor-Genera! and the Attorney-Gen-eral, who had to satisfy themselves whether an immigrant was undesirable or not. It was inaccurate to say that the young man Lyons was deported because of the part he had taken in connection with the dietary scale on tlie Manuka. He was deported because in tbe opinion of the Attorney-General he was a person who was a danger to the peace and good order of the country. The police reports concerning him disclosed that the lad Lyons—and he was little more than a lad—had in his possession literature that was of an inflammatory character. With reference to the Bill before the House, the principle of liberty of speech was not an issue. What the Law Provides.

The existing legislation, the Alinister added, did not apply to any one resident in New Zealand, but gave power to exclude from the country those who were considered by their actions to be a menace to the peace and good order of the community. It was not a singular or isolated law bv any means. In Great Britain only the other day Sir W. Joynson Hicks bad said that the country

jvas tired of the influx of those who "came to stir up class hatred, and he had expressed the opinion that the exclusion laws would have to be tightened up. America, also, said Sir James Parr, had exclusion laws that were of the most drastic type. Every country had the right to pass exclusion laws if it chose in order to keep out undesirables. The suggestion to take away from the Executive, and put into the hands of a jury the right to say whether any immigrant was desirable would be not only inconvenient but undesirable. The Government of the day in New Zealand would certainly stand by the present law. He had had, in company with his colleagues, some sympathy with Lyons, who was a lad who had got into bad company, but the law had to be carrird out. ' Laughing at Revolution. In reply Air. Fraser said that nobody was disposed to oppose the general principle that the people should have the right of determining who should come into the country. . The Minister was wrong when he said that Lyons entered New Zealand armed with Communist literature. The literature was issued by the I.W.W. which reasoned that the present political running of a country was wrong and that the people, from the scientist to the labourer, should form an industrial organisation which they consideted would govern tlie country better. He had seen nothing in the literature of Lyons to advocate violence, except the industrial weapon, and nothing about political upheavals or bloody revolutions. “I’m not going to deny the right of anyone,” added Air. Fraser, “to express anv thought whatever so long as he does it in decent language, conforms with the laws of New Zealand and acts within the law. The present Statute places in the hands of the AttorneyGeneral a power that ought not to be placed in the hands of any single individual, and it. opens the waj’ for all forms of injustice.” There was no need for the legislation and the only people it was directed against were British subjects. Different legislation dealt with the aliens who came to the country. He questioned whether the evidence produced against Lyons would have been accepted in any court of law. Air. Lysnar: Was it Lyons who talked about starting a revolution in Australia. ? Air. Fraser: I don’t know . . . anvone who talks about revolution should be laughed at rather than punished.

The Bill was read a second time on the voices and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. A DENTIST’S MISFORTUNES x MISLED BY THE YEAR BOOK The story of an English dentist who had apparently been ruined by .an error in the New Zealand Official Year Book and some wrong information from the High Commissioner’s Office, was told in the House of Representatives yesterday by Air. L. M. Isitt, in commenting on a report of the Public Petitions AL to Z Committee. The latter recommended that the petition of Henry Blair Smythe, of 16 Holly Road, Christchurch, for relief, be referred to the Government for favourable consideration. Air. Isitt said that the petitioner, who wished to leave England for health reasons, gave up his practice, which had a turnover of about £2OOO a year, and came to New Zealand. A lady who had made inquiries for him at the High Commissioner’s Office had been informed that a dentist qualified to practice in Great Britain was also entitled to do so in New Zealand. This erroneous assertion had been supported by reference to the Year Book.- It appeared even in the 1925 issue, though the law had been altered in 1922. The petitioner left his wife and daughter £250 to live upon, and came to New Zealand with his sou. On arrival he found, that he could not practise as a dentist, and being unfitted to take up any other occupation he had got into such low water that if he were now allowed to practise he could not buy the necessary equipment. Under the . circumstances it would be, qnlv fair if the Government either permitted him to practise, and provided him with funds or paid his passage to England. Mr. J. McC. Dickson, chairman of the committee, endorsed Air. Isitt’s remarks. A LOWER HUTT LOAN For the purpose of acquiring a pleasure ground and equipping a children’s plavground, authority to borrow the sum of £5OOO at not more than. 6 per cent, has been granted by Ordet-in-Cottncil to the Lower Hutt Borough Council. OVERWORKED PARSONS During the second reading of the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill in the House festerdav, Air. L. )M. Isitt passed the remark that some parsons were lazy. Labour benches: Hear, hear! “But T know more about parsons than most of you,” returned Mr. Isitt, "and I can sav that the average parson does not go slow. He does not work onlv eight hours a day, and he does not ask for a 40-hour week!” LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL The Legislative Council met at 2.30 p.m. yesterday. , . , The Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland Empowering Bill (private) was read a third time and passed. The ATassev Burial-ground Bill, the Rotorua Borough Amendment Bill, the Housing Amendme,nt Bill, and the bamoa tShlpping) Bill, were read a second time. There was a short discussion in the Legislative Council yesterday on the Housing Bill Hon. E. Newman supported ' the Bill, and suggested the establishment of small settlements in the conntrv with half a dozen workers occupying about ten acres each. The Hon. J. Barr believed that any attempt of the sort would be a failure. Something of the sort hid been attempted in the past, but, except in isolated instances, ft did not succeed. The Hon. W. Earnshaw strongly supported the measure, and it was carried without dissent.