Freer Entry To U.K. Urged

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31544, 5 December 1967, Page 17

Freer Entry To U.K. Urged

(N.Z. Press Assn.—Copyright) LONDON, Dec. 4. Honesty demanded that white Commonwealth citizens be restricted in their entry to Britain only if their presence would be likely to cause difficulties, “The Times” said yesterday. In an editorial calling for a new look at immigration, the newspaper said: “There was a degree of humbug in the Commonwealth Immigration Act of 1962. The purpose of the measure was to restrict the influx of coloured people at a time when the number of incomers seemed to be threatening race relations in Britain. Subsequent events have entirely justified the policy. “But in 1962 neither politicians nor public were ready to acknowledge openly that they were dealing with a colour problem. So restrictions were applied to all Commonwealth countries, coloured and white alike. “As an expression of principle this may have been admirable, but as a practical policy it was nonsense from the beginning. “It did not fool the coloured members of the Commonwealth,” said “The Times,” “and it angered people from the old white Dominions—so much so that the six Australian AgentsGeneral in London have protested to their State Governments about the treatment received by Australian visitors to Britain.” Part of the trouble might be in the operation of the Act, which could work more smoothly when an appeals procedure was established. . “But sooner or later they [(the Government) will have

to face the central question: Does it make any sense to stop Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians coming to Britain as freely as in the past, just because there is a colour problem?”

One could understand the Government’s reluctance to budge on the issue, “The Times” said.

“It would be harder politically to make a change in favour of the white Commonwealth now than it would have been to frame the Act in the beginning so as to exclude them. Such an action would immediately be misrepresented as a blatant example of racial discrimination —just the accusation the Government will not wish to in-

cur when they are committed to strengthening the Race Relations Act, a sufficiently delicate political operation at the best of times. “But they would be wiser to reflect that the cause of race relations in Britain would be best served at this stage by frank speaking. “Honesty demarids that the Race Relations Act should be extended, because at the moment it does not cover the most Important areas of discrimination . .

“The Times” also carried a news article describing the cases of John Brownlie and other Australians who have had trouble in Britain.

It gave as an example a 28-year-old Australian girl whom it named simply as Dorothy, who spent her return passage to take a beauty technician’s course in London.

“After she accepted a job, the Home Office told her she could not stay,” the newspaper said. “She could not afford to return to Australia, so, in desperation, she arranged to marry a Briton who would leave her after the ceremony, enabling her to stay. “She was talked out of the marriage by one of the Australian Agents-General, who ‘agreed to act as a virtual ‘guarantor’ for her while she saved her return fare. “Now she is submitting her bank passbook for regular inspection and, on this condition, is being given three month extensions to her entry permit.” “The Times” quoted the West Australian AgentGeneral, Mr G. P. Wild, as saying there was little he could do about the restrictions.

“I am constantly having to intervene to help Australians, most of them young, who are getting into trouble with the immigration laws,” he said. “I had four young nurses

from Perth in my office recently. They had come here on the same ship, from the same hospital, with exactly the same qualifications and background. Yet one got three months, two six months, and the fourth 12 months.” Tasmania’s Agent-General, Mr A. White, told “The Times”: “We cannot protest at the law, but we can protest at the extraordinary way in which it is administered. “It is not the West Indians who are being discriminated against—it is the Australians and New Zealanders.” “The Times” said the Home Office, denying it was hounding Australians, explained: “The law applies to them as to all Commonwealth citizens.”