THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE

Evening Star, Issue 19025, 21 August 1925, Page 2

THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE

LABOR INTRODUCES A BILL ORIGINAL MEASURE " PANIC LEGISLATION " [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, August 20. In the House of Representatives Mr Fraser moved the second reading _of the Undesirable Immigrants Exclusion Amendment Bill. He said the original Act was a piece of panic legislation and was an infringement of all the principles of the Magna Charta. Thera was no justification for it at the time, and there was even less justification for it now. The purpose of the Bill was to withdraw the powers conferred upon the Attorney-General in the Undesirable Immigrants Exclusion Act, 1919, to prohibit any person, even a British subject, whom ho considered to be undesirable from landing m New Zealand, or to order any person to leave the dominion, or to order the arrest and deportation of any such person without right of recourse or appeal to the ordinary law of the country on the part of any such person. It was not proposed to repeal section 4 of the principal Act, which provides that mans or Austrians canned land in New Zealand without a license from the At-torney-General, nor was it to open the door to those who were criminals or who were known to have violated the laws of other countries. Two persons had been deported under the original Act, hut be was not concerned with them. Ho did not agree with the opinions of others, for Doth had attacked the Labor Party as much as they had attacked the Government, as, of course, they had a right to do, but both were entitled to a fair trial and a chance of getting justice. As it was the administration of the present law was left entirely in the hands of one man, and all he (the mover) wanted to do was to get back to the law prior to 1919, which was sufficient to meet all cases by allowing them to be dealt with under the ordinary law of the land. The existing law was subversive of the elementary principles of justice, and ought to be repealed. Mr Lysnar said the time had not arrived when the existing legislation should be removed from the Statute Book, as it was a very necessary safeguard. to the dominion, The legislation applied only to newcomers, and had no reference to anyone who had resided in the country for twelve months. The fact that when Lyons, who was deported under the existing law, got to Australia lie declared ho was going to work for a revolution there fully justified what the AttorneyGeneral did here.

Mr Holland rallied Mr Lysnar on las loyalty when lie refused to sell his wool to the British Government when it_waa wanted for clothing'for British soldiers. He contended it was entirely wrong to place in the hands of the AttorneyGeneral power to deport men without trial, and it was that principle against which they were fighting. Sir James Parr said that this Bill had nothing to do with liberty of speech. It was a measure dealing with the class of immigrant that could come into the dominion, and practically all countries were now taking the precaation which we had taken in the existing legislation. The main complaint at present appeared to he against the powers to prohibit the entry of undesirables, and it naturally followed that if such did get into the country the power was provided to put them out agaiu. Lyons was deported because he was considered dangserous to the peace, order, and good government of the country. The police reports showed that he had in his possession a considerable quantity of literature of the most inflammatory Bolshevist character. It would be extremely to take from the Executive and put into the hands of a jury power to exclude anyone considered undesirable. Other countries had more_ drastic laws on Mr Fraser, replying, said no one the subject than had New Zealand, disputed the people’s right to determine whom they should permit to enter the country. The power to exclude criminals existed in other legislation. Parliament had laid it down that political offenders should not _ come within the scope of* this legislation. Britain had long been an asylum for fighters for freedom in other countries, and this openhearted attitude had undoubtedly saved her from many upheavals, such as had occurred in other countries. His complaint against the present law was that an accused person did not receive a just hearing before the court. The Attorney-General should not be invested with such power as he had under the existing law. The Bill was read a second time on the voices and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee.