A.—sa

146

BEPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE

Sir JOSEPH WARD : Our law is clear. If a man were to run away, as indicated here, he would come under our Aliens Act. We cannot have an infraction of that, because it opens the door very widely. Under the Aliens Act, perhaps only a percentage of them could land under normal conditions. If they were caught we should send them out of the country at the expense of the ship they had run away from. Mr. NORMAN HILL : The first part of the resolution declares to all those alien seamen whether coloured or of whatever nationality, that whenever you please you may break your contract with the shipowner, and there is no risk of getting sent to jail for doing it. Now, so far as I know, all over the world it is a criminal offence if he breaks his contract, except in his home port. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Not in our country. Mr. DUNLOP : It is everywhere treated as a criminal offence for a seaman to leave his ship in a foreign port. Mu. NORMAN HILL: In this country it is not an offence, but abroad if a seaman leaves his ship at any' foreign port it is treated as a criminal offence. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Why is it -not treated as a criminal offence in England ? Mr. DUNLOP : Because we can get another man here to take his place. Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON :It is a criminal offence in England now for a man to desert his ship. Supposing a man has made a voyage and arrives at a port in the United Kingdom, and the ship is not going to pay off and he deserts, it is a criminal offence now. Mr. NORMAN HILL : It is a criminal offence, but the punishment is not imprisonment. Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON : We have a case which is going to be tried at Barry to-day, where the crew left the ship at Tilbury. She was proceeding to Antwerp, and the men had a dispute with the master, and now they are being prosecuted at Barry for desertion. Mr. NORMAN HILL : They forfeit their wages. Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON : And imprisonment. The imprisonment means before the ship starts on a voyage, but not during the progress of the voyage. Mr. CUNLIFFE : You don't get imprisoned in this country. You get prosecuted for desertion, and you are liable ito forfeit certain things, but you are not liable to be imprisoned. Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON : Well, I will tell you by and by about that when I get a telegram. Mr. CUNLIFFE : The man is liable to be prosecuted, and his wages are forfeited. Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON : I will tell you more about that after to-day. Mr. CUNLIFFE : If he is guilty of absence without leave, he is liable except in the United Kingdom. Have you ever had a man imprisoned in the United Kingdom for the last 20 years ? Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON : I don't think we have. We knew prosecutions are going on. but I don't remember a case of imprisonment. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : I want to take formal exception to your acceptance of Mr. Hill's amendment since it involves an encroachment upon the Immigration Restriction Act, 1901, of the Commonwealth, and the Amending Act of 1005. Practically, these are purely local Acts, and not within the scope of this Conference. It is true they apply to seamen, but only as they apply to every other person. Every person must arrive at Australia on a ship, and it is very unfortunate, of course, that Mr. Norman Tl ill happens to be connected with the shipping. But we cannot help that. People cannot get to Australia except by a ship, and whether they are one of the crew, or a_ passenger, and fail to write fief] words in the language—it is the Colonial Office that dictated to us our policy - Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : Not the policy, but the legislation.

Hon. W. M. HUGHES : And the policy. Mu. COX : And the form which would enable you to do what you wanted to do without raising the objections of foreign powers. The CHAIRMAN: 1 think Mr. Dugald Thomson's answer is fairly complete; you do imprison now. You imprison under the Aliens Immigration Act, and I don't think it substantially matters whether he is imprisoned iin.lei the Aliens Immigration Act or any other Act. I don't think it would matter very much to the shipowner; the man is liable to imprisonment now. .Mr. DUNLOP . Yes, if he does not answer the necessary test. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : We deal with every man who does not pass the test. He is a prohibited immigrant. Mr. NORMAN HILL : When they ask us to agree to a policy of abolishing imprisonment for desertion, we say : " Are we to consider it merely as we consider it here in "this country, or are we to consider it having regard to "the fact that we are fined £100 for certain kinds of "deserters if we leave them ashore?" If you are going to leave that liability on us, we regard desertion as a much more serious offence. It not only puts us to great trouble and expense, but it exposes us to punishment. Now if the Australian Government is asking us to agree that it is wise to abolish imprisonment, surely it is reasonable to ask what is your policy with regard to these fines? Our answer is different, according to the answer they give us. Otherwise must not we leave it as a point which they must settle for themselves, because both to abolish imprisonment for desertion and leave us with these fines we say is unjust. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Mr. Hill is asking us to do something in addition to that which we have already promised to do, which is very unreasonable. At the present time, the law is, if any one deserts from a ship, and is found on shore, and is a prohibited immigrant within the meaning of this Act, he is taken and put on board the ship, you are fined for letting him come ashore, and you have to take him home. Now nothing that this Conference can do can alter that law. We say you are in no worse position after this Conference than before it in respect to that matter, because we say we will put on board your ship anybody you ask us to put on board. You are no worse off with regard to this class of deserters than before, and in addition we will put on board your ship any deserter other than a prohibited immigrant, therefore you are in a better position. Mr. ANDERSON : We say if you abolish imprisonment for desertion pro tanto. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : We do not imprison coloured deserters now. We won't have them in the country. We put them on the ship, and you must take them to the place you brought them from. We won't imprison them. Mr. ANDERSON : What would be the position of a white deserter if he became a charge on the State? Hon. W. M. HUGHES : I do not know what would be the position. lam assuming you do not bring people on your ships as a crew who will be a charge on the State. What do you want to do a thing like that for? If you like to bring people with one lung and one arm and one eye on your ship Mr. ANDERSON : A man when he gets on shore may be unable or unwilling to work. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : The only time the Seamen's Union sought to enforce that, to eel deserters declared a charge upon_th-_ State, they utterly failed to do it. and T do not think it has ever been done since the law has been in force. Str JOSEPH WARD : Our position is perfectly clear. Here is our law on the point :—" Every seaman or "apprentice who commits any of the following offences " is liable to he punished summarily as follows : (a) Tf "he deserts from his ship he shall he liable to one "month's imprisonment, or to forfeit all or any part "of the wages which he has then earned : and the " master or shipowner shall not be accountable for anv "effects which such deserting seaman leaves on board, "but shall as far as possible deliver them up to the