NATURALISATION

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 18823, 13 July 1923, Page 5

NATURALISATION

A BILL TO AFFIRM NEW ZEALAND’S ATTITUDE EXPLAINED BY SIR FRANCIS BELL (By Telegraph). [From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, July 12 The position which has arisen with regard to naturalisation was explained in the Legislative Council yesterday afternoon by iSir Francis Bell, who moved the second reading of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens (in New Zealand} Bill. The first Act passed by the New Zealand Parliament was in 1886. It was entitled the Aliens Act, and it made provision for the admission of foreigners as British subjects. The next Act was in 1880, which, being consolidated in 1908, had remained the Aliens and Naturalisation Act till to-day. In 1914 the Imperial Parliament passed the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act. That Act, with necessary modifications, was actually introduced into the New Zealand Parliament in 1914, but was delayed consequent on the outbreak of war. The Imperial Act, in parts one and three, defined the status of a British subject. Part two of the Act provided for naturalisation. Any portion of the Empire might adopt it, and naturalisation became naturalisation throughout the portions of the Empire which adopted it. New Zealand was unable ip adopt part two of the British Act, and the present Bill provided the alternative of our remaining where we were before, with the right of determining within our own boundary the qualification of the person who should vote with us and sit in our Legislature. It was clear that this country differed in manv respects from other parts of the Empire. He might instance the great Dominion of Canada, which was seeking population for its land and was not careful to restrict immigration to those of our own family. Moreover. it was clear that the naturalisation of a foreigner in the East End of London might not be of great importance, even if the number ran to hundreds. It was a matter of great importance to us to be exceedingly careful respecting those who were permitted t.o use the franchise. That was the only right, denied foreigners. It was important to say that we should continue to be as we had been in the past, the judges of the qualifications of the foreigner to share with us in the government of this country. It was suggested that the Act with regard to some of these provisions might be held to be invalid, because of conflict with the Imperial Act. That, however, was a little more than appeared to be possible. If by implication there was to be legislation in the Imperial Parliament which governed our legislation and prevented us from legislating for ourselves, it was unfortunate. It seemed to him the matter was placed beyond argument by the Im perial Act of 1914, allowing New Zealand to legislate for itself. Ho thought the Bill avoided the ques tion of authority altogether by proposing to declare that the law on this subject was declared in the Inr perial Act as the law of New Zealand. By the Constitution Act might not legislate contrary to the laws of England. Our rights to legislate on this subject was con ferred in 1847 and repeated in 1914 Did that right exist if our legisla tion contravened a portion of a British Act? He insisted that it did, and that our right was untrammelled. He said that the Colonial Laws Validating Act of 1865 was expressly passed in support of the view he took, but in any case we had made that question immaterial by the adoption of portions of the British Act. it seemed to him a matter of overwhelming importance that we should continue to hold the powers we had, and he would never be a party to bringing in a measure which would deprive us of that power.