If that is not done, there will be a continuation of what is going on at present. The greatest objection to the present situation is that, apart from the question of the stock of game, there are one or two fellows who, by ignoring the existing law, are getting a completely unfair advantage over the rest of the people in the area. They just go out and ignore the law and the rest have to put up with the back-end of the stock.
The second matter we have before the House is the question of seasons. There is nothing sacred about this. We have tried to put down what we think would be reasonable dates. Probably there will be other views with regard to the different dates for the different seasons. Taking them as they come, the first is the wild duck, geese and plover, 1st September to 12th February. That is a shortening at both ends. In the existing situation, they come into season on the 12th August and go out of season on the 28th February. There are two ideas incorporated there really. You may take it geese and plover are not affected by the opening of the season because they, normally speaking, will not be in on the 12th August or even on the 1st September. Certainly the geese will not be in. They are not, therefore, affected. But they have always been bracketed with duck and it is easier to leave them bracketed with duck; and, in so far as you are not permitting a man to shoot wild geese before 1st September, whereas he used to shoot on 12th August, no difficulty arises because the first wild geese that arrive here arrive on the last day of September.
As far as plover are concerned, again I do not think the change is of much importance. A certain amount of golden plover nest here, but I do not think anyone will suffer any very great hardship if he is not permitted to shoot plover until 1st September. As far as wild duck are concerned, everyone's experience seems to be that the country is full of flappers on 12th August, young duck only half able to fly. It may be that, when the 1930 Act was framed, climatic conditions were different and the ducks were stronger. Within the last six or seven years anyone who has any experience at all will tell you that, in the normal way, the majority of duck hatched out in any given year are not really fit to fly on 12th August and are very easily shot. To a certain extent, they are fit to fly, but they are not able to look after themselves. One will walk into a clutch of them and they will get up all round one and will be as easy to shoot as crows; they will drop down 50 or 60 yards on and one can walk on and pick up the rest of them. It should not be any great hardship to put the date back to 1st September.
With regard to the latter end of the season, there are two possible classes of duck. The home duck is undoubtedly starting to mate towards the end of February. Now, once they start to mate they lose all their wariness. It is a common experience to find ducks paired towards the end of February. They are very easy to shoot once they pair. Our suggestion is to put back the date; in other words, to shorten the season so as to give them an opportunity of pairing off.
Next I come to the geese and foreign duck, such as widgeon and so on. Again, like all birds, once they start to collect in order to migrate, they lose a considerable amount of their wariness. That applies particularly to wild geese. Whereas wild geese are normally very wary and very difficult to get up to, at the beginning of February and during the first ten days of February they start collecting together to make their migratory flight and they lose their caution altogether as the end of February approaches. That is the reason for the first change for which we are asking.
With regard to partridge and pheasant, we have made partridge 1st November. They have been tied to pheasants and they have been a month back in so far as it is permissible to shoot them in the last few years. It seems right to tie them to pheasants. They are not so wary and it is impossible to segregate them. One idea in putting the date back to 1st November is because they are in very, very short supply. Their shooting was prohibited for a number of years after the war, but it is doubtful if that prohibition had the full result it should have had.
One reason for not prohibiting shooting altogether is that they do not thrive if the coveys are not split up and they will not be split up effectively except by shooting. One reason for putting it on to 1st November is that at that time of the year one is making it harder for the sportsman because the roots and stubble in which they are normally found have depleted considerably and they are not as easily kicked out of a field of roots or long grass and stubble as they are in October. They are a bit more wary, more difficult to shoot and more difficult to stalk. If they are to survive at all, they will have to be given that extra chance. That is why we put that date down.
With regard to pheasants, we have put down 1st November, too, for much the same reason. We left the date for the end of the season as it is. There is nothing sacred about these dates. We would like the Minister to accept the general proposition that when he fixes the seasons each year, as he does, he should revise the present system and look at it anew. Not merely are there special circumstances requiring special changes, but the whole system of opening and closing seasons should be brought up afresh and dealt with on the basis that the stock of birds has greatly declined and is continuing to decline; and it is in reference to that, that the seasons should be fixed. We think that would be desirable. We may be wrong, but we certainly would like to hear any views anyone else has. We would above all ask the Minister, when he comes to fix the seasons for birds, to accept the general principle that they should be fixed with that particular idea of shifting the emphasis on to the preservation of the birds even if it means a shorter shooting season for some years to come.
The other two matters which are dealt with in the motion are matters on which I would like to put forward a point of view which I hope is of some importance. I accept straightaway that, generally speaking, the House should be careful in imposing on the courts limitations on their discretion with regard to penalties. It does not matter what the case is, whether it is for larceny on a grand scale or a motoring offence — it will be said that it is the judge who hears the case, hears the witnesses and the defendants, who should have the widest possible discretion in regard to what penalties he will impose.
The general principle of criminal law undoubtedly is that outside of revenue offences, which are in a special category of their own, the judge is given a maximum he may impose. He may impose a sentence, say, of not more than two years or a fine of not more than £50, but he is never given a minimum. He can fine a man 1/- or give him a day in jail. The only immediate mandatory sentence which I know of is the suspension of a driver's licence, if a person is convicted of being drunk in charge of a car. That is the only analogy for the suggestion we have in regard to the suspension of the firearms licence and of the game dealer's licence. As you all know, when a man is convicted of being drunk in charge of a car the justice may sentence him to jail or may fine him up to £50 or as little as 1/- but, whether he likes it or not, once the person is convicted, he must suspend his driver's licence for not less than one year.
Our suggestion is not as revolutionary as it may look. There is a provision in Section 17 (3) of the Game Preservation Act, 1930, in regard to a person convicted of an offence under the Act — you may take it that largely applies to shooting birds out of season, and so on. It states:—
"Where the person convicted of an offence under this part of this Act is the holder of a firearms certificate granted to him under the Firearms Act, 1925, (No. 17 of 1925), the justice of the District Court before whom he is so convicted may, in addition to any other punishment imposed under this section, revoke such firearms certificate...."
There are certain ancillary provisions, his certificate should be suspended for not more than five years and so on.
Section 23 of the same Act provides:—
"(1) Upon the conviction for an offence under this Act of the holder of a game dealer's licence, the justice of the District Court before whom such holder is so convicted may revoke such licence and such revocation shall be in addition to any other punishment imposed by such justice under this Act in respect of such offence."
That is the existing law. The position there is that where a man comes before a district justice for, say, shooting a hen pheasant when it is prohibited or shooting a pheasant ten days before the season, the justice may, if he likes, impose upon him a suspension of his firearms licence. Where a game dealer is found guilty of buying a bird before the commencement of the shooting season the justice may if he likes revoke his game dealer's licence and not permit him to trade in game dealing. Our request is this. Without in any way trying to interfere with the freedom of the District Court in this matter, I want to point out that these powers are practically never used or at least they are used on very rare occasions. There can be no two ways about it: every fellow who goes out with a gun knows which bird is which and he knows the date for the opening of the season for that bird.
If a man shoots a bird out of season he does it deliberately and when he is brought before a district justice and it is proved to the satisfaction of the district justice that he was guilty, the district justice may let him off and perhaps fine him 1/- if he is a poor man and cannot afford to pay a larger fine. We are not interfering with that discretion. We are suggesting, however, that that man should lose his gun licence for a period of not less than a year. We are providing further, if the suggestion is adopted, that that same man can go back after three months to the district justice and make a plea for getting his licence back. Therefore, if he has a good case or if he is a man who seems to show repentance for his crime the district justice can use his discretion and all the man loses is three months' shooting out of the season.
We are not asking for anything very stringent or for anything which is going to cause hardship. I do not believe anybody really lives by using a shotgun for game. For most people, it is a sport and it does not seem a very harsh thing that a man who is using it as his hobby but who is unwilling to abide by the rules loses his opportunity to shoot for a period of three months. We believe that would put a stop to a great extent to ordinary poaching.
The position at present is that even if a person is caught nothing much will happen. He may only have to pay a small fine in the District Court. The district justice who dealt with the case might think that birds should be shot for the 12 months of the year and might not regard is as a serious offence. But if the person knew that if he were caught shooting birds out of season then he was going to lose his licence for at least three months it would be a great deterrent to the shooting of birds out of season.
I want to make it perfectly clear that this penalty is not being asked for game trespass. We are not seeking any interference with the existing law in that regard. This is not a question of going in on another man's land or going in on a shooting preserve. We are not asking for any additional penalty or any alteration at all in regard to the business of one man going into another man's shooting. If a man wants to preserve his shooting let him preserve it himself and get whatever assistance he can from the Guards. We are solely concerned with the question of shooting birds out of season and it is in that connection we are asking for this penalty of the suspension of the gun licence.
The other matter dealt with in the motion is the question of suspension of a game dealer's licence. There, again, under Section 23 of the Act, as I mentioned, the existing situation is that the justice may, if he thinks fit, suspend a dealer's licence. There is an even stronger case for mandatory suspension in this case. Who are the holders of game dealers' licences? They are people who are trading in poultry and game. I do not suppose there is a great number of them. I do not know how many there are. They make their living out of it. There is an old saying, very often quoted to juries and when sentence is being imposed, that if there were no receivers, there would be no thieves. If there were no game dealers with a sort of slipshod view about what the season for game is, there would be very few poachers. It is the same with regard to many other things.
Certainly, with regard to this matter, if you could cut down or stamp out the game dealer who is willing to buy at the back door before the commencement of the season and to hang up and to cash in on the first market day of the season, then you would stop the before - the - opening - day - of - the season poachers overnight. The poacher will not go out, unless he can get sale for the birds. As Deputy McQuillan says, he can get some ready sale at hotels. He can also get ready sale at private doors. We know that. We have to face up to that. You cannot make the sort of law that will prevent the man that does not feel pushed about the open season. Leaving that aside, however, you can stop the game dealer from filling his larder before the opening of the season with grouse, pheasant and duck and producing them out of the hat within the first few days of the season.
A game dealer who does that knows very well what he is doing. He knows he is encouraging poaching. He knows he is trying to get one up on the straight game dealer next door to him who is in competition with him. He knows very well that if he has pheasants, grouse, duck, geese in his larder before the opening day of the season they are there illegally. There is no doubt about that. He knows he is buying them illegally. Why should he, if he is caught and if he is convicted, not lose his game dealer's licence? Surely he is not a suitable man to hold a game dealer's licence.
This whole idea of licensing game dealers, created by the Act of 1930, was created with the idea of getting some control over game dealers and having some sanction over their heads and helping to make them keep the law. A man who buys before the season, knowing very well what he is buying and when he is buying, should have his licence suspended. I can see no reason why it should not be suspended in those circumstances.
Again, I think anyone who faces up to it will agree that the first time a game dealer's licence is suspended as an obligatory matter — the district justice having no discretion — the first time a game dealer is convicted and his licence goes by the board, straightaway, you will find very few dealers willing to buy before the opening of the season. A man would not take that chance any longer.
If we are really serious about trying to improve conditions and arresting the decrease in the stock of game in this country, these are minimum requirements. As I said at the beginning, none of these ideas is sacred. There may be better and other ideas. In particular, I am convinced that it is essential that, besides these, or in addition to these or, some people would say, in priority to these, somebody should tackle the vermin situation very vigorously.
I ask the support of the House for this motion, not on the basis that it is a tourist industry, or that we will have people flocking here from any other country to shoot. I do not believe that they will come, and, whether they do or not, I do not think they would be welcome. As far as shooting is concerned, it is our own sport, an individual sport. It cannot be done in large numbers. It is a lone man's game to a large extent. It is a very pleasant occupation and the best possible enjoyment is got out of it by the people who live where they shoot. I do not put it forward as a tourist attraction. I hope it will never be a tourist attraction. I put it forward as a hobby which more and more in the past 35 years has become the hobby of every section of the people in every part of the country. It is a small matter. You will never win or lose an election in any constituency by being for or against the preservation of game birds, but shooting is one of the things that make life very bearable for quite a large number of people. No matter what their job is, the thought of having this sport now and again keeps them going.
If that is so, and I believe it to be true, we can, without spending 1/- of Government money or anybody else's money, at this stage, make one step forward in the preservation of game, and I believe that, if this House adopted in principle or in spirit the motion before it now, it would be an earnest of its desire to see game preserved in this country and it might easily have much more effect than the mere terms of the motion would carry. If people were convinced that the House was serious about this matter, it would be quite easy to come back with voluntary help and assistance and voluntary ideas to the House, as I hope to come back soon, and put forward some comprehensive scheme for game rearing and for vermin destruction which would really put us in a position of having good game stock again.
I ask the House, for these reasons, to accept the spirit and the details, too, of the motion and I would welcome any views on that.