EXCLUSION OF MRS FREER

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21938, 12 November 1936, Page 13

EXCLUSION OF MRS FREER

Australian Minister’s Statement INFORMATION FROM INDIA (UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION —COPYRIGHT.) (Received November 11, 10.5 p.m.) CANBERRA, November 11. Mr T. Paterson, Minister for the Interior, replying to Mr McCall (a Government member in the House of Representatives) made the following statement on the exclusion of Mrs M. M. Freer from Australia: “Information was conveyed to the Department of the Interior that an Australian military officer, who has a wife and child in Australia, had become entangled with a Mrs Freer in India, and was coming to Australia on the same steamer as Mrs Freer. The information received from India was of such a nature as to indicate that Mrs Freer was a person of undesirable character, and in view of these facts, I approved of action being taken to exclude her from landing in Australia.” Mr McCall asked on what authority customs officials could supply confidential information, unknown to the Minister, to a representative of another government concerning the immigration laws, as was apparently done in this instance. Mr Paterson replied that under a reciprocal arrangement, it was customary for confidential information to be furnished between the customs authorities in Australia and New Zealand without reference to the Minister. It was regarded as largely a matter of form. Mr McCall asked, in the event of Mrs Freer returning, would she be subjected to a second dictation test. Mr Paterson; That is a hypothetical question. I canpot answer. A Labour member, Mr Mulcahy: Can the Minister say who was the informant and who adjudged Mrs Freer undesirable?

Mr Paterson; I am not prepared to add to my statement, A Sydney message says the “Sun” this evening features a radio telephone conversation with Mrs Freer at Auckland, in which she said she was deeply resentful of the Minister’s aspersion on her character. Questions about Mrs Freer’s exclusion from the Commonwealth were also asked in the Senate. The Minister in charge, Senator Sir George Pearce, asked for notice of the questions. COMMENT RESERVED MRS FREER READS MINISTER’S EXPLANATION (PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) AUCKLAND, November 11. • “I am glad Mr Paterson has made a statement —if only he had said something three weeks ago,” said Mrs Freer, after reading a copy of the Canberra cable message. She showed keen interest in the explanation given by Mr Paterson, and read certain parts of the statement more than once. “So I am a person of undesirable character,” said Mrs Freer, as she came to the part of the Minister s statement referring to information received from India. “That’s all I want,” she added. “He’s got to prove that.” “This is getting India’s back up,” was another remark of Mrs Freer’s. as she finished reading the cable message. “Not until I see my solicitor in the morning.” replied Mrs Freer, when asked to comment on the Minister’s statement. “I am very sorry for Mr Paterson —deeply sorry,” was her parting remark. QUESTION IN HOUSE OF COMMONS ♦ _ DOMINIONS SECRETARY ENQUIRING LONDON, November 10. Replying to Mr Arthur Henderson (Labour) in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for the Dominions (Mr Malcolm Mac Donald) said he lacked information, but he was enquiring into the case of Mrs M. M. Freer, a British subject, who was refused permission to land in Australia. It was primarily a matter of concern for the Australian authorities to consider whether a British subject with a British passport had a prima facie legal right to enter the Commonwealth.

Mr Mac Donald promised to tell Mr Henderson immediately he received a reply.

After Mr MacDonald’s answer Mr Henderson declared to the Australian Associated Press: “If the reply of the Commonwealth Government is unsatisfactory, I shall take the matter further. I am concerned with the question of principle rather than any specific case. It seems a dangerous precedent if a British subject can be excluded from any part of the British Empire while holding a British passport under the immigration laws governing settlement. I understand that in the Freer case the question of settlement did not arise.

“I am not aware of any law on the Statute Book to prevent Australians entering England. Indeed, I am doubtful whether they could be stopped for any reason, unless they were criminals. Certainly there is nothing to prevent unmarried persons from the Dominions living as man and wife coming to England, which does not possess a Mann Act like the United States. The moral issue, however, is only subsidiary. The principle at stake is whether British subjects should not be permitted to pass freely through the territories of which they are citizens.”