The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1936. THE CASE OF MRS. FREER

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 265, 9 November 1936, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1936. THE CASE OF MRS. FREER

’yHE case o£ Mrs. Freer is arousing much interest, but the interest is on the wrong point. The facts, as at present known to the public, seem to be as follows: Mrs. Freer, and an Australian, who is an officer in the British Army, met in India. The young officer is a married man; Mrs. Freer hopes to marry him when he gets his divorce from his wife. She goes to Australia in pursuit of those marital intentions, is asked to read and translate a piece of Italian writing, fails to do so, and is, in consequence, refused admittance into Australia.

The New Zealand Government, learning that Mrs. Freer is likely to come to N’tAv Zealand, very properly instituted enquiries concerning Mrs. Freer, and learned from the Customs Department in Sydney the grounds upon which the Australian Commonwealth Government took the action they did. These considerations do not merit Mrs. Freer being refused permission to land in New Zealand, and again, very properly, Mrs. Freer is permitted to come to New Zealand and to land at the port of Auckland. The request addressed to an English woman that she pass a language test in Italian when she desires to enter into a part of the British Commonwealth, is obviously a piece of ridiculous procedure. It might as well be stated plainly that she was refused entry into the country. However, that is the means whereby the would-be entrant is refused entry into Australia, and the means are not of much importance. The question is being asked: “Why was the umbrella test applied to Mrs. Freer?” This question the Commonwealth authorities refuse to answer. Seeing that the umbrella test, is applied with the express object of avoiding awkward explanations on the part, of the authorities, it is not surprising to find them refusing to be drawn in the present case. Interest centres upon what Mrs. Freer has done to cause the Commonwealth Government to take the drastic action complained of in refusing a presumably satisfactory person to land in Australia. But this is not the main point which should concern the public. The authorities may have full justification for their action, or they may not. At the moment it would appear that this important issue has been decided on by the Commonwealth authorities upon the evidence of those who are concerned io oppose Mrs. Freer landing in Australia. Mrs. Freer has not been heard, nor is there any way by which Mrs. Freer can either ascertain what is alleged against her, or offer her answer to those allegations. Mrs. Freer, then, may have been condemned unheard. She has suffered a world-wide publicity which is unenviable, and the only channel now open to her is the public Press. The Press will concern itself with the ease while, it remains a nine-days’ wonder; after that there will be very little concern about the wrongs or rights of the matter. Tria! by Press is only one remove less objectionable than trial by the mob. It is undesirable that matters of this sort should be decided on the evidence of one party only, because grave injustice may be done; the matter should be dealt with in camera to start with—at least in the case of British subjects—and then if arbitrary powers are to be given to the Minister he could decide with at least, some show of the exercise of judicial function.