ENEMY ALIENS

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 72, Issue 6240, 10 June 1946, Page 5

ENEMY ALIENS

R.S,A. RESOLUTION RUED ANTI-SEMITISM CHARGED Opprobrium suffered by the R.S.A. as a result of a remit passed at the Dominion conference last year in relation to enemy aliens in New Zealand was recalled at a session of the association’s annual conference. Auckland’s request that the remit be affirmed was withdrawn in favour of an amendment that the Government carry out an, immediate investigation into the acquisition of properties and businesses by enemy aliens since September, 1939, and if it be foundi that such activities were prejudicial to the interests of returned servicemen, legislation be introduced to remedy the position. Several delegates asked why last year’s remit (which in effect sought the eventual deportation of refugees who had come from certain European countries and Japan since September Ist, 1939, and the confiscation of money and possessions above those declared on their arrival here) had not been implemented by the Dominion executive committee. They weie told that many associations, on learning the import of the remit, had strongly protested against its Fascist nature and the public had adopted much the same attitude. Speaking to the motion for reaffirmation of the remit, Mr A. D. Gunn (Auckland) emphasised that the question had nothing whatever to do with anti-Semitism. He quoted from an extensive telegram from Auckland to support that association’s attitude, giving as instances the business activities of five enemy aliens in detail, which he claimed to be prejudicial to ex-servicemen’s interests. He offered to produce further evidence of the footing aliens had secured in business. “This remit is phrased in drastic words,” continued Mr Gunn. “We feel like drastic action.”

The Rev. K. S. Leggitt said they had never quarrelled with aliens as persons, but only with the ideologies of some. If it was suggested that refugee aliens in New Zealand were fleecing returned men, they must be fair and admit that hundrds of New Zealanders were doing the same thing.

“For the last twelve months I have been experiencing some shame that I did not swim against the tide and oppose this remit last year,” said Mr J. D. Gerard, (Whangarei). It was a grievous thing for the enemy aliens and for the R.S.A. that the remit was passed. If the association was to earn and keep the respect of the country, they must be reasonable in their demands. Auckland was the conference to pass judgement on every enemy alien on the strength of five cases. By voting against the remit the conference could wipe out a blot on the record of the R.S.A.

If last year’s conference had rejected the resolution it would have saved the strong criticism levelled at the association not only in New Zealand, but in Australia, Canada, and South Africa, said Mr J. S. Goldsmith (Wellington). He quoted from an overseas newspaper whose comment had been that the resolution was following in the footsteps of Nazism, leading to anti-Semitism, illfeeling, and, finally, war.

Since 1934 New Zealand had admitted 1800 Jewish refugees. Half of them were German, 247 Austrian, 122 Czechoslovakian, and the rest mainly Poles and Hungarians. Of the total, 592 were in full-time occupation, and 251 were married women. The overwhelming majority of the refugees were earning less than £5OO a year.

Of the 38 who had set up in business and industry employing large numbers of New Zealanders, seven had started industries entirely new to this country. A large number of our pioneers were Jews. Could it be said that their descendants were not good citizens? Mr C. O- Bell (Dominion vicepresident) : The mover of the remit has said that it was in no way antiSemitic.

Mr Goldsmith: Ninety-five per cent of the refugees are Jews. If that’s not anti-Semitism, I don’i know what

Australia was, like New Zealand, short of population, and was prepared to take in 5000 Jews a year for three years from Europe, he added.

Mr C. Miln (Christchurch) considered that Auckland, in putting forward its evidence, had failed to show] where aliens were affecting returned men’s interests. The properties acquired by aliens amounted to less than 1 per cent, in acreage and value of sales and transfers during the period specified. After last year’s conference the feeling of many associations had been that there was good reason for not prosecuting the resolution. On Anzac Day, said Mr Miln, they had talked of our soldiers dying for democracy. We had given asylum to refugees, and were now asking support for a resolution that was Nazi or Fascist in character, for deportation and confiscation. Mr Miln then moved the amendment for an immediate investigation. They were bound as a returned services association, he added, to see that an adequate investigation was made, and that the facts were made public. “Last year we suffered opprobrium from all* over the country, which we cannot afford to suffer if we are to retain the public esteem,” said Mr Miln.

There was a class among the refugees which might be interfering with the rehabilitation of returned men, said Mr J. G. Taylor (Wellington). If so, they were the association’s “pidgin.” But the association could take action only as the remedy became apparent, when the evidence was approved. Asked by Mr A. A. Cohen (Hutt Valley) what the Dominion executive had done after last year’s resolution, Mr Bell reiterated that requests had been received from many branches that nothing should be done until the present conference. Granted the right of reply on accepting the amendment, Mr Gunn said it was a great pity that the question of the Jews had been raisedIf it happened that 95 per cent, of refugees were Jews, that was unfortunate, but the remit was not an attack on Jews. However, if the enemy aliens were

allowed to go on the way they were doing, they were going to have a very big say in the country, said Mr Gunn. “I would say that we will have no democracy in this country if we allow the present movement to go on. If the Government is holding us off, we should camp on their doorstep until we get action.” He claimed that all the cases he had cited from the telegram had definitely deprivecLrfeturned servicemen in business. As for the suggestion that aliens’ share of property transactions was only 1 per cent., even if it was only a half of 1 per cent., that was equivalent to 1000 of the 200,000 ex-serv-icemen. Mr Bell read a letter from Federated Farmers asking that the Government be requested to 'stop the sale of properties to enemy aliens until all servicemen were rehabilitated. The letter claimed that 414 of the 514 applications for property by enemy aliens had been granted. Of these, 65 were farms, 275 houses, and 63 business properties. The total value of such transactions from 1942 to Decemiber, 1945, Was £579,846. In reply to a question, it was stated that the Government was prepared to facilitate the availability of the information sought.