159

A.—sa

REPORT OP PROCEEDINGS OF TB2 CON'KKHKNCE.

entered into, and which the statute may govern and may make legal. All those treaties which now are binding on Australia cannot be effected by any resolution we pass here ; they are binding, and there*s an end of it. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : It is the legislation that may be affected. Hon. W r . M. HUGHES: In such a case, if the thing is binding, a proviso would be inserted in the Act as would make them binding at law. I do not think we are opposed to that. The CHAIRMAN : I agree with Mr. Dugald Thomson that it is much better we should have a fairly unanimous vote, and not have any dispute about words. Sir JOSEPH WARD : There is no division among the New Zealand delegates. Mn. BELCHER : I was under the impression that the words "adhere" and "concur" were contained in Mr. Hughes's amendment. I have not the words in front of me, and I really do not know what they are yet. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : The point I make is this, that "adhere'' is not the: proper term. It is The term used for a nation's agreement to the terms of the treaty which is entered into by the executive. "Concurrence," on the other hand, postulates the thing being laid before the people's representatives and being adopted by them. For that reason, I prefer my word. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : It does not pledge that. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : It does imply it. The CHAIRMAN : Sir Joseph Ward, would you mind the words " in which they have concurred or may subse- " quently concur " ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : No, I do not. Sm WILLIAM LYNE : That is the point I don't want. 'I'm: CHAIRMAN : Now I put Mr. Hughes's amendment, and it will read as follows :—" That it be recom- " mended to the Australian and New Zealand Govern- " mints in any future Merchant Shipping legislation to " insert an ex press provision safeguarding the obligations "imposed by any treaties in which they have concurred "or may subsequently concur." —Carried unanimously. The CHAIRMAN : Now No. 2 :—" That all resolu- " tions adopted by this Conference are understood to be " without prejudice to the decision of any legal question " involved." Sir WILLIAM LYNE : I would like to know before 1 say much about this what is the object of it? The resolutions have no effect whatever, and how can they affect l he legal position ? Mr. LLEWELLYN SMITH : Throughout all the sittings of this Conference there has been a mutual agreement that we should discuss all questions as practical questions, and not as legal questions. That, I think, has immensely increased the utility of our discussions. But we seem to want some declaration on record that that is so. We have not been discussing as lawyers the question of powers or jurisdiction. We have been discussing practical questions, and at some point or other I think it will be necessary that that should be recorded, and it will be understood that all our decisions are without prejudice to l'-_al questions. Personally, I am not a lawyer. I do not know whether you are a layman or a lawyer, Sir William. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : I am a layman. Mr. LLEWELLYN SMITH : I do not want to be told that in something we have recommended we have led the various Governments astray. There is nothing in it beyond that. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : I must say I cannot compass the meaning of this. Mr. LLEWELLYN SMITH : It is very necessary. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I am opposed to this for this reason. This Conference is not a constituted authority to create a legalising. If there is any legalising of our motions required, that must be done by our Parliaments.

Why yon want to introduce this, seeing it is without prejudice, unless they are legal decisions affirming their legality, I do not know. I do not quite understand why it is put. Mu. COX : I confess I have some difficulty about it myself. The law is the law, and nothing you can do here can alter it, and we may go on passing resolutions by the yard, but the law is the law. I don't think it is necessary. Mr. CUNLIFFE : I wish, as representing the Board of Trade from a legal point of view, to say this : That I might have points put to me hereafter, or points may crop up on which I might have to say, however much this resolution is of practical value, from a point of law, I cannot agree to it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : If we confirm a resolution like this, it is practically saying all the resolutions we have passed at this Conference are not to be put into effect until we have ascertained the legal position. There are some in which no legal consideiation is concerned at all. Mr. COX : I think Mr. Cunliffe has made his position perfectly clear. Someone may come to him and take his advice on the question of whether having regard to the resolutions of this Conference- he may interpret the law in a particular way. He will say, "I am extremely sorry "the resolutions of the Conference have not the force of " law, and I must decide this is law, and not what the " Conference has said." Hon. W. M. HUGHES : I would like to point out this, that it frequently happens now, and it did happen in the High Court in reference to a matter that was brought before it for judgment, that the debates of the Conference when delegates from the. Commonwealth came home to discuss exactly what the Constitution Act meant in certain particulars for instance, what is meant in regard to the appeal to the Privy Council, the Court will look at these debates and these discussions, if there is no other way of coming to a decision, and no doubt they may affect its decisions. Now here is a bald resolution, affirming that nothing that is said here is to.have any weight. Now I fancy that while we cannot alter the law, I think that where the law is not in harmony with any of our decisions, our resolutions, that the particular Government, the law of which stands in the way, ought to amend its law if its delegates have assented to that decision and if they make out a good case. That being the position, I think there ought to be e rider to the effect that while everything done here is without prejudice, still the intention of this Conference is to recommend such an alteration of law as will effect uniformity. Mr. PEMBROKE : Is not all this covered by Sir Joseph Ward's resolution. The CHATRMAN : I think we have made our position clear in the matter, and I suggest this might he withdrawn now.—(Agreed.) The CHATRMAN : Now we come to No. 3 :—" That " the obligations imposed by Australian or New Zealand " law on shipping registered in the United Kingdom "should not be more onerous than those imposed on the " shipping of any foreign country." Sir WILLTAM LYNE : Now in reference to that, I think it has been stated, and I have stated myself, that I should be opposed, if possible, to putting anv restrictions on British ships that are not imposed on foreign ships. but I cannot see why we should have a resolution of this kind passed after what has taken place, and I shall oppose it because we do not know exactly what we may decide to do. and we may possibly give British shipping greater facilities. I should like very much to. Mr. PEMBROKE : This would not prevent you. Sir WILT.IAM LYNE : But I do not think it is a judicious thing to have it exercised in this particular way in the resolution. We are supposed to be left fairly free to deal with matters as it seems best in Australia, and a resolution of this kind, I think, is superfluous. That is the only objection I have to it. Thk CHAIRMAN : You don't object to it. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : I have already said, so far as I am concerned, I shall prevent, if I can, anything being