207

A.—4.

9 June, 1911.] Reciprocity Destitute Persons Law. [Gth Day. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Would not she have an action for maintenance ? Dr. FINDLAY : Supposing she came to New Zealand to proceed against him for deserting her in England, she would fail. But she would get future maintenance. Mr. BRODEUR : You mean in a criminal action; but suppose she took an action for support ? Dr. FINDLAY : If she came to New Zealand she would be able to get support from the time she brought her action and complained, but she would not be able to get anything for the expense of corning to New Zealand, or for her maintenance before coming to our courts and seeking relief there. Mr. BRODEUR : Even if she remained in England, could she not take a,ny proceedings before your civil courts to get maintenance from him ? Dr. FINDLAY : No, that is the point I want to make clear; we cannot give extra territorial operation to any law of ours, and the point I wish to press is this very point. If the desertion takes place in England it is not an offence according to our law at all; we cannot make it an offence because we are not permitted to legislate for what takes place outside our borders. What we did last year by an Act which passed last year was this : We provided that if a husband deserted his wife or children, wherever the desertion took place, proceedings might be taken in New Zealand. Now that provision requires reciprocal legislation on the part of Australia, and we are going to get it from Australia if Mr. Hughes has the mind of his Government. The other AttorneysGeneral in Australia have readily agreed to pass reciprocal legislation so far as is necessary. What we ask now is that the Imperial Government should help us to make effective this provision for dealing with those deserting husbands and fathers. The provision suggested is this, that proceedings may be taken either in New Zealand by the wife left deserted in England, or more efficiently still, that she should take proceedings in England against her husband who has deserted her and gone to New Zealand; that the order made here should on being filed in our Courts be prima facie a valid order in New Zealand; that provision should be made (as we have already made it in New Zealand) that he can attack the order upon any material ground, but on no technical ground; he can show that it was made in fraud or that he is a destitute person or any other valid ground is open to him, but in the absence of his sustaining a valid ground of that kind the order would have the same currency in New Zealand as it would have had in England. Now, we are proposing, and with the concurrence of Australia I hope it will be operative next year, the system of common action I have mentioned. Our orders will be enforced in Australia and the Australian orders will be enforced in New Zealand. Is there any reason why a similar arrangement should not be made with the Home Government ? It is true, perhaps, that so many do not desert from us to England or from England to us, but we know that there are at present in England men who are well able to support wives and children, some of the children being in our industrial schools, and yet we are advised that the expense of the present process would be so great to us that we had better go on paying as we now do. That applies more strictly and strikingly to desertion to Australia and from Australia to us, but if you are going really to promote Imperial unity, the oversea Dominions should not be treated as they are just now, in point of law almost exactly like foreign nations. There is little or no difference between the proceedings necessary to give validity to an order such as I have mentioned in France or Germany as to give validity to orders in Australia and New Zealand, and while that continues it does not seem to me that you have that Imperial unity we are all anxious to promote. The matter is, of course, largely technical, Mr. Harcourt, and the question of giving further Imperial operation to industrial aAvards and arbitration awards is still under consideration, perhaps this matter, now that I have opened and explained it, might stand over for consideration when we are deal

27—A. 4.