CASE OF MRS FREER

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21939, 13 November 1936, Page 9

CASE OF MRS FREER

MINISTER DEPENDS HIS ACTION DEBATE IN AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FROM INDIA (UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT.) (Received November 13, 12.30 a.m.) CANBERRA, November 12. A full explanation of the reasons which actuated the Minister for the Interior (Mr T. Paterson) in ordering the exclusion from the Commonwealth of Mrs M. M. Freer was demanded in the House of Representatives 10-day. Mr J. S. Garden (Labour) notified the Speaker of his intention to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a “matter of urgent public importance—the exclusion of Mrs Freer from Australia.”

“Never in Australia’s history, or that of any other country where democratic government exists, has a responsible Minister taken such a stupid action,” declared Mr Garden in moving the adjournment of the House. He demanded that Parliament should be told under what section of the immigration law the Minister had taken power to side with one party in a domestic dispute. The Minister had taken refuge in a coward’s castle to blast a woman’s character. He had apparently acted solely on the representations of the family of Mrs Dewar, and, without taking steps to verify anything, the Minister had constituted himself a sort of divorce court to intervene in private domestic troubles. Mrs Freer’s case affected every British subject holding a British passport. The Cabinet should have the courage to tell Mr Paterson that he had blundered, and the Minister should he man enough to admit it.

Mr McCall (Government) said there were vital principles at stake, the importance of which transcended the personal consideration of Mrs Freer herself. The Minister, by his silence, gave the impression that he had information of some dreadful charge against the woman, whereas the New Zealand Government not only allowed her to enter, but welcomed her.

Minister Replies

Other members having spoken, the Minister, Mr J’aterson, defended his action. He said what amazed him most was the superabundance of misplaced sympathy lor an adventuress, while there was little or no thought of compassion for a wile and child'whose domestic world was tumbling about their ears. Mr Paterson said Mrs Freer had placed more stigma on herself by her own statements than any he had made. He, in fact, had tried to protect her as well as the other people involved. There were, unfortunately, some people with an insatiable appetite for unsavoury details. “The finmigration Act imposes on me a vary definite duty, and I am honestly endeavouring to carry out that dirty in the best interests of the Australian people,” he said.

Mr Paterson added that be was not at liberty to disclose the precise nature and source of his confidential information. He was completely satisfied as to its trustworthiness, and it absolutely justified the exclusion of this woman as an undesirable citizen. He had received information from India indicating in no uncertain way that she was an undesirable character. He felt he had a duty to the person from whom he obtained this confidential information, and to other people who were innocent victims in this unfortunate domestic affair. He was convinced that the presence of the woman would have wholly and irreparably encompassed the wreckage of an Australian home, which was the most cherished of Australian institutions. Mr Garden’s protest amounted to so much “sobstuff.” Mr Garden was the type of person who might be expected vigorously to protest when the question of the admission of wholesome migrants arose. Yet in the case of a heartless woman ursurping a wife’s place, he was filled with indignation. Mr Garden’s motion was lost on the voices. “MOST HUMILIATING” MRS FREER ISSUES DENIALS OP STATEMENT (PRESS ASSOCIATION TXLRGRAK.) AUCKLAND. November 12. “I am terribly distressed. Hie whole thing is most humiliating,” said Mrs Freer this afternoon in commenting on yesterday’s statement from Canberra. “There is no truth in the statement made by Mr Paterson, and I have placed the whole affair in the of my solicitor. I deny everything" she' said. "It is absolutely untrue. I can’t conceive that anyone in India had anything to say. I am not of my friends or acquaintances in England, India, or anywhere but I am concerned about my honour. There is no question in my mind that there will have to be some drastic alteration to the immigration law in Australia.”