DANGEROUS POWERS

Evening Star, Issue 19925, 23 July 1928, Page 5

DANGEROUS POWERS

THE MENTAL DEFECTIVES Bill 'SAFEGUARDS INSUFFICIENT [Special to the ‘Stah.’] WELLINGTON, July 23. “ The most serious Bill ever intro* duct’d to the New Zealand Parliament, is how leading psychologists describe the proposed Mental Defective Amendment Act which tho Minister of Health (Hon. J. A. Young) brought down Iftst week. Opposition to tho Bill in its present form is very acute, and psychologists and psychiatrists are awaiting its reference to a committee of tho House in older to give evidence of their objections. Tho first thing to which objection is taken is the constitution of tho board which the Bill proposes to set up. The board largely consists of laymen, and,; board largely consist of laymen, and, in the opinion of psychologists, they are not competent to make the decisions which the wide powers of tho Act will force them to make. ‘‘As the Bill stands there is far top little safeguard,” said one highly qualified man to-day. “The board which is to bo set up is, at best, an administrative board, and there must bo another, body between it and the public. I would suggest a board of three—a psya peyschiatrist, and an educationist. They should investigate the cases which come before the board, and even then no action should be taken unless they are unanimous. A very dangerous and very curiously drawn section is that which enables a member of tho board to be represented at any meeting by proxy, this proxy being any officer of liis department, wdio, while attending, ‘ shall be deemed to be a member of the board.’ These are not matters which should be handed over to any member of the Civil Service whose whole experience may be purely administrative, and who will really know very little about the matters in which he is making decisions. “ A shocking provision is that which proposes to place upon tho register of mental defectives children in the schools who are known to be suffering from retardation. Retardation is no evidence at all of mental deficiency. It is a social matter, and may be duo to bad home life, to temperamental trouble,or even to bad instruction in the schools. In other words, the fault may not bo with the child, but with the system. This provision, I devoutly hope, will be cut out. and wo mean to do everyting possible to accomplish this. Another .very dangerous and improper proposal is to place the names of persons on the register on the receipt of information by the board. Inquiry is provided for, but tho point is: Who is to make that inquiry, and what form will it take? Again we come back to the necessity of some better constituted body and more highly qualified body than a board which consists of Civil servants, laymen, and only two persons with any real knowledge of the subject. “In addition, we are not satisfied: that the provision for swifter committal to mental institutions, without the man being seen by the magistrate, is satis- ( factory. In our opinion, it docs not| provide sufficient safeguard. The ob-j ject, of course, is to get a case in the ] early stages, but proper examination; should be made of every case. “Tho proposals concerning stcrilisry*. tion are much too drastic. The provw ■ sion for sterilisation of a minor with”: tlie written permission of the father, : and mother or the guardian should be altered. The question does not arise-' until the child reaches puberty, and, then, it seems to mo, the consent of both the guardian and tho child should, bo obtained if the child is capable of nn--derstanding what is meant. To give; any board powers over an 'anti-social person would be in the highest degree, iniquitous. What is an ‘ anti-social’® person ? The place to deal with any* one of this nature (if it ever be determined satisfactorily) is in the _ law; courts, and we have those provisions ■ already. To give a board power to prohibit the marriage of or to order the. sterilisation of anyone whom it considers ‘anti-social’ would bo far to® grave a thing.”