THE IMMIGRATION BILL

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 304, 17 September 1920, Page 8

THE IMMIGRATION BILL

COMMITTED IN THE HOUSE

VARIOUS AMENDMENTS DISCUSSED

Tim Immigration Restriction Bill was last night considered by the House 'in committee. Tho Bill requifres persons not of "British or Irish birth" to obtnin permits to enter Now Zoajand. It also requires British subjects arriving in New Zealand to,take the Oath of Allegiance, and.other persons arriving in Now Zealand to take an oath of obedience to the laws of New Zealand.

Mr. T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) objected to the use of the words of "British or Irish birth." He wished to see the word "Irish" dropped and a definition of the word "British" inserted. The Bill as it stood, required an Australian or a Canadian to obtain a permit to land in New Zealand.

Mr. Massey said he proposed to amend tho phraseology. Mr.'Holland'(Buller) moved an amendment proposing'(l) to exclude from New Zealand persons, other than British, who failed to pass a sixth standard test in English and arithmetic; (2} to abolish the poll tax, on condition that the number of Asiatics who. might be admitted into New Zealand in, any one year should bp limited to 100.

The Prime Minister said that he would osk the House to reject the amendment, because it elearlv meant total exclusion of .Asiatics. Not one Chinaman in thousands could pass the suggested test, and probably it was the same with the Indians. .JVith reference to the proposed abolition of the noil tax, he wished to say that the Bill was an experiment. If agreed to by-. Parliament,'- it would promptly pass into law, and there would bo tilme before next cession to. see whether it was a success. If the Bill was a success, he would ask Parliament next session to repeal the provision for the poll tax. Mr. Massey added later that the adoption of Mr. Holland's amendment would place difficulties in the way of obtaining the> Royal assent to tho Bill. It would mean a serious {Interference with the rights of Britisli subjects in other, parts of the Bmnire.

The discussion upon the sixth standard test was not of very long.duration. Tho House divided, and the proposal was-de-feated by 46 votes to 17. The rest of the amendment was discussed at greater length, but was also defeated. It was suggested in the course of the debato that the proposal to limit definitely the number of Asiatics allowed into the Dominion would introduce into the measure <i discrimination against Asiatics whiteli was not in accord with tho intention ot the Bill. There appeared to be a fairly general opinion that the .poll tax should bo letaihed.

Mr. Rtatham (Dunedin Central) said the Bill laid it down that a . foreip-ner wishing to come to New Zealand hod to nimly to the Minister of Customs in a letter written fir.m the country in which lie resided. How tho Minister was to decide at that distance that the applicant was., a. suitable immiirraut was not clear. Tlw> Bill seemed' to be iust the Governments nolivo wav of snn'ng that Asiatic! should not come into. New Zealand at nil. .

Upon th° motion of thp Prime Minister, "and" was substituted for "or" where the pip-asp "of British or Irish bii-Hi" occurrod !n tho Bill.

Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) objected to the provision that the Governor in-Council might exempt certain nations from tho operation of the clauses relating to foreigners. The Prime Minister said it was very desirable that there should be power to exempt, say, Americans or others of our Allies in the late war. He thought that members understood very well the purport of the clause. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) renewed the attempt of tho Labour members to have a definite limit put upon the number of Asiatics who might bo allowed to enter New Zealand in any year. He moved to insert in the clause empowering the Minister to grant or refuso a permit a provision that the number of Asiatics admitted in any year should not bo more than 110. He said that the proposal made by Mr. Holland had been bound up with the question of the poll tax. Here was the plain issue of limitation.

'Die amendment was rejected on a division. ' ■'/■

The peculiar position of the Society of Friends under the requirement ttiat the Oath of Allegiance should be taken upon admission to the country, was mentioned by Mr. Holland, who said that mejflbers of tho society were forbidden by their doctrines to tako an oath.

Mr. Massey said there was already a provision in tho law that would ( allow such people to make an affirmation instead of an" oath. Ho was anxious to avoid penalising them on account of their religious beliefs.

Mr. M'Combs (Lyttelton) said that tho objections of the Friends went further than the Prime Minister appeared to realise. They-felt that they could not bind themselves to obey all future logislntion whatever it might be, and irrespective pf whether it conflicted or not with their duty to God.

Mr. Massey repeated that he wasvery desirous of meeting the caso of the Friends. The matter would be very carefully looked into, and some-amend ment might be introduced in tho Upper House. He would 1m satisfied with the making of. a statutory declaration in place of the oath, if that would get over tho difficulty.

The Bill originally gave the Minister of Customs power to grant a ■ permit to remain in New Zealand for a period of six months to any person desiring to do. so for the. purpose of "business, pleasure, or health." This was amended'by making the period six months or aiiy shorter period, as the Minister might determine. The permit is to be issued subject to conditions which may be prescribed by regulation under the Act or imposed by the Minister. Failure to comply witu the conditions is made an offence under the Act. Power to revoke a temporary permit, and to say within what tirno after the revocation tho holder is to leave the Dominion is vested in the Minister! The making of a falso statement for the purpose of obtaining a permit is declared an offence against the Act. By other now clauses added to the Bill on the motion of Mr. Massey, the duty of removing from Now Zealand any person who is required to leave on account of tho provisions of the Bill 16 cast upon the owner, charterer, or master of any vessel about to sail. If upon the offer of a reasonable sum to perform that duty he refuses to do se>, or nids the perfoii concerned to escape, lie is liablo to a fine of JjlOO. The Minister is to be given power to delegate to any Customs officer the powers to ]>e vested in liim by the Bill.

Tho Bill was reported with _ amendments, and was read a third time and passed.