CASE OF MRS. FREER,

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 42, 13 November 1936, Page 9

CASE OF MRS. FREER,

Debate in Australian Parliament

MINISTER REPLIES TO CRITICS

“Misplaced Sympathy and Sob Stuff”. By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright. (Received November 12, 8.40 p.m.) Canberra, November 12. “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 the Labour member, Mr. J. S. Garden, moving the adjournment of the House on the case of Mrs. Freer. 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, he said, had taken refuge in a coward’s castle to blast a woman's character. He tad 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 a private domestic trouble. Mrs. Freer’s case affected every British subject holding a British passport. Cabinet should have the courage to tell Mr. Paterson that he had blundered, and the Minister should be man enough to admit it.

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

Mr. Paterson added that he was not , at liberty to disclose the precise nature or source of his confidential information, but he was completely satisfied, of its trustworthiness. It absolutely justified the exclusion of Mrs. Freer as an undesirable citizen. He received information from India indicating in no uncertan way that she was an undesirable character. He felt that he had a duty to the person from whom he obtained this confidential information and to the other people who were the innocent victims of 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 sob stuff. 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 defeated on the voices. “I DENY EVERYTHING” Mrs. Freer Makes Further Statement By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, November 12. “I am terribly distressed. The whole thing is most humiliating,” said Mrs. Freer this afternoon, commenting on the statement published from Canberra. “There is no truth in the statement made by Mr. Paterson, and I have placed the whole affair in the hands of my solicitor,” she said. "I deny everything. It is absolutely untrue. I can’t conceive that anyone in India had anything to say. I am not ashamed of nly friends or acquaintances in England,' India, or anywhere else, but I am concerned about my honour. There is no question in my mind that there will have to be some drastic alteration in the immigration law in Australia."