A.—sa

148

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCB.

The CHAIRMAN : And then there is Mr. Norman 11 ill's addition. Sm WILLIAM LYNE : All I will ask is this, if ivuat question is decided so far as my resolution is concerned, that I have the right, if 1 wish —I want to analyse the amendment; 1 don't like it at the first glance, and 1 want to analyse it, and all I shall say is, I should like to have permission, if 1 see any objection, to refer to it again. The CHAIRMAN : Now we are considering Mr. Norman Hill's proposition : "That in the case of a deserter " the shipowner shall be relieved frum all «sponsibility " for his repatriation, and that no penalty be imposed on " the shipowner by the State in which the deserter is left "for leaving such deserter behind." Sir WILLIAM LYNE : Isn't that part and parcel of the other resolution? The CHAIRMAN : Not quite, and for this reason. Mr. Norman Hill says, if you are going to abolish imprisonment for desertion, it is rather hard on the shipowner that he should be punished, not for an offence that' he has committed, but for an offence which he has done his very best to prevent. We have separated it, because it raised the Immigration Restriction Ae_t. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : I ask you to declare that irrelevant and out of order, for the reason that it deals with a matter that this Conference is not competent to decide. So far as imprisonment is concerned, we shall always imprison those persons until we can hand them over to the shipowner, and we shall compel the shinowner to take them away at once, and we shall fine him in addition. The CHAIRMAN : Mr. Norman Hill says it is unfair. I can hardly rule it out of order. I have ruled many things out of order which have been discussed. I have not objected to discussion, because, unfortunately, we are under the terms of the despatch sent out by Mr. Lyttelton, with regard to uniformity of legislation for the Colonies and the Mother Country, and I could hardly rule out of order a discussion on our own laws, because it is a very wide invitation. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Would you allow me to point out that the proposal does not make any alteration with regard to the position of the shipowner, because it is proposed under the clauses as passed now that we shall' apprehend these people and we shall deliver them to the shipowner. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : I can quite see a shipowner's difficulty in this, and I can also see the difficulty of interfering with another Act of the Commonwealth Parliament, that is, the Immigration Restriction Act, and leaving a loophole by which that Act could be evaded. I can quite see that difficulty without entering into the merits of the Act one way or another. But I can see also that relief could be given as regards those not coming under Section 3 of the Immigration Restriction Act, which refers to prohibited immigrants. Sm JOSEPH WARD : If Mr. Norman Hill will add " That this resolution shall not refer to penalties and " fines imposed under the Aliens Restriction Act," I think the matter will be all right. The CHAIRMAN : Unfortunately, Mr. Norman Hill wants it to refer. I think the only thing is that the shipowners should put on record this proposal of their own. It is quite clear. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : They would get relief to that extent in the other case. The CHAIRMAN : I think they have a case for consideration, and if I may put it to the Commonwealth and New Zealand representatives, it does seem to be rather hard that they should be punished when they are not responsible, and when they nave done their very best to prevent the offence. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : Yes, they would be relieved by such an addition excluding those shut out by the Immigration Restriction Act; they would be relieved to a considerable extent by not being liable. Thb CHAIRMAN : Would the Commonwealth representatives agree to that ?

Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : That is excepting those excluded by the Immigration Restriction Act. You might say that in the case of other seamen, who might desert and become a charge on the State and who were not excluded by the Immigration Restriction Act, that they should not be liable. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : The Immigration Restriction Act excludes everybody upon whom a penalty could be imposed. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : They tell me the first portion of Mr. Norman Hill's addition to No. 5 has not been submitted. The CHAIRMAN : The first certainly has. It has been added to with regard to cases of fraud. Mb. CUNLIFFE : I think, if I might suggest it, this question is a matter which the colonies and the Mother Country might very well consider legislation on, because they overlap each other to a certain extent, and the colonies have not their legislation in line with ours. At present, we have no definition of desertion. Forty-eight hours' absence is desertion in the colonies. If that is desertion and the shipowner can show that it is desertion, he might be relieved from the cost of repatriation. You have to prove it as a fact that a man intended to desert, otherwise he is simply left behind. Sm WILLIAM LYNE : I quite agree with that. The question of what is desertion is a very important one. Mr. CUNLIFFE : It is, and I am glad to hear you say so, because I do think it ought to be considered before you define it. Sm WILLIAM LYNE : 1 do not know about the Courts, but if you make a hard and fast rule, you may place a seaman at a very great disadvantage. Supposing a man goes on shore when a ship is likely to be stopping, and for some reason during his absence she leaves, according to the New Zealand practice he is likely to be charged as a deserter. Mr. CUNLIFFE : " Desertion means the absence of a "seaman or apprentice from his ship without leave for "a period of 48 hours without lawful cause or excuse, or "any unlawful departure from his ship with the intention "of not returning thereto." That is in the definition Clause of the New Zealand Act. Sm WILLIAM LYNE : I do not at all agree that 48 hours should be fixed as an absolute rule. I think it may do great injustice. Mr. DUNLOP : Forty-eight hours provided he intends to desert. Mr. CUNLIFFE : At the same time, it crystallizes into 48 hours if he is not able to show he did not mean to. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Would you let me read the definition here, in the new Bill? It means "the absence " of a seaman or apprentice," _c. Mr. CUNLIFPE : Forty-eight hours makes it sufficient. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Sir William does not agree with that. Mr. CUNLIFFE : I don't either. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : But that is in his Bill. 1 don't agree with it either. The CHAIRMAN : I don't think we can carry it any further than that. The shipowners will move this resolution and put it on the record :—" That in the case " of a deserter the shipowner be relieved from all responsibility for his repatriation, and that no penalty be " imposed on the shipowner by the State in which the "deserter 13 left for leaving such deserter behind." I understand the Commonwealth and New Zealand representatives do not see their way to accept it, but it is moved by the shipowners. Very well, now we will go on to No. 7. Sm WILLIAM LYNE : How does it stand ? The CHAIRMAN : It stands in this way, that the only resolution that is carried is your resolution with Mr Hughes 8 addition. Now No. 7.