Mrs. Freer’s Case

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 283, 13 November 1936, Page 15

Mrs. Freer’s Case

CANBERRA DEBATE

Minister Defends His Action MR. GARDEN’S SOB-STUFF By Telegraph—Press Assn—Copyright. CANBERRA, Nov. 12. “Never in Australians 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, in moving the adjournment of the House on Mrs Freer’s case. He demanded that Panlament should be told under what section of the immigration law the Minister had taken the power to side with one party in a domestic dispute.

The Minister, said Mr Garden, had taken refuge in 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 a private domestic trouble. Mrs Freer’s case affected every British subject holding a British passport, he said. 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 said that there were vital principles at stake/ the importance of which transcended 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. Other members having spoken, the Minister, Mr Paterson, defended his action. He said that what amazed him most was the superabundance of misplaced sympathy for an adventuress, while there was little or no thought of compassion for the wife and child whose domestic world was tumbling about their ears.

Mr Paterson said that 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 the other people involved. There were, unfortunately, some people with an insatiable appetite for unsavoury details. A DEFINITE DUTY. “The Immigration Act imposes upon me a very definite duty,” he added, “and I am honestly endeavouring to carry out that duty in the best interests of the Australian people.” Mr Paterson added that he was not at liberty to disclose the precise nature or source of his confidential information, the trustworthiness of which had completely satisfied him and which ‘ ‘ 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 that he had a duty to the person from whom he had obtained this confidential information and to 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 compassed the wreckage of an Australian Lome, which was tho 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 any question of the admission of wholesome migrants arose, yet at the case of a heartless woman usurping a wife’s place he was filled with indignation. Mr Garden’s motion was negatived on the voices. Replying to questions on Wednesday, Mr Paterson had stated that an Austra- ’ lian military officer with wife and child in Australia had become entangled with 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, he had approved of action being taken to exclude' lier from landing in Australia.

“ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE”

AUCKLAND, November 12. “I am terribly distressed about the whole thing. It is most humiliating,” said Mrs Freer, commenting on the statement published at 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. I deny everything. It is absolutely untrue. I can’t conceive that anyone in India has anything to say. 1 am not ashamed of my friends or acquaintances in England, India, or anywhere else but I am concerned about my honour. To my mind there ought to be some drastic alteration of the immigration law in Australia.”