MENTAL DEFECTIVES BILL STONEWALLED.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 26 September 1928, Page 7

MENTAL DEFECTIVES BILL STONEWALLED.

OPPOSITION DESIRES OPERATION DELAYED MB COATES EMPHATIC. WELLINGTON, Last Night.- . The House of Representatives went , into committee this afternoon on the Mental Defectives Amendment Bill. The Leader of the Opposition said he hoped the Government would not go on with the Bill this session. It was far too serious a matter to be forced through at that stage of the session. It was true the committee had made eer- ? .tain amendments in the, clauses but the difference was not sufficient to justify those who were originally opposed to the Bill.’to support, it oh hia : db^dia#s' v tTln^^ift fclauses, which he s&id bristled- with dangers. He suggested holding the measure over to permit of more mature consideration; Mr. T. Wilford said the Bill was like the curate's egg—-it was good and bad in places. There was something in ' it that lie liked but there were other things in it he could not. support. He urged its 1 postponement. Messrs Q. W. Forbes and P. afeb Shpportb<i this course.' ** pelajr Important. Mr. M. saiil delay .fafW, portant, b£ca!uke ‘fresh evidence might *be foi|li^bfeihg; : .- -Ho doubted if- three members of the House had had time- to read already tendered and more time was necessary to do it. It might be found that, after all, they were only dealing with effects and not with causes. # - •.. 'Sir. '-WAD.' Lysnar • was greatly disappointed with the Bill. It was very dangerous in some respects and he hoped it would not be forced through this session. The present law was bad enough but this Bill was worse. It was an ihsult to the Dominion and member would be justified in doing everything warranted by the forms of the blouse to prevent the Bill going on tb the Statute Book. Mr. H. Atmore said in his opinion public feeling was not so much against the Bill as it was in favour of a postponement.' was agreed” that the- Minister was honest in his en.deavour -but the feeling was that time was -required to: acquire further knowledge and information on the subject, , which had baffled men in all countries. . • Miv A. ; Harris-andr Sir Joseph Ward while admiring the courage of the %, Minister in tackling so big a subject, 'advised: caution. * The discusson was proceeding* when the House 1 adjourned at ’ ' Long Preparation. AVhen the House resumed, Hon. J. Young, wrio is in charge of thb Bill, said the burden of the speeches was that the Bill was being,, rushed. That was not so. As fhr back as 1924, Sir Maui Pdmare first introduced such a Bill. In 1925, a committee sat arid considered this question and ever since then, the Government had been requested to-take some action in the direction’ of the committee's report. The .Government,, however,, felt that not sufficient information on the subject was available and an important, officer of ..the Government was sent' . .abroad'to.collect data and on this data, the present 'liill was drafted. ’ It had been before a special commit 1 ■?. .tee and' had been modified in some of its important features, which in his ■opinion, afforded valuable safeguards. He outlined these changes and urged .that if the problem was not attacked in ■the way this Bill proposed to attack it. they would never get anywhere. At -present we had mental defectives in mental hospitals and prisons and those institutions were not the places for them and the Bill provided a proper method of treatment. That was the problem they had': to face and the problem' they must face. Sterilisation Not Chief Purpose. The proposal to introduce sterilisation was not the main purpose of the Bill;, that clause had be eh unduly magnified. Sterilisation was something which was to be kept in the background to meet special cases. He did not propose to postpone the Bill but he was prepared to postpone certain clauses if discussion indicated they should be postponed. Ho was prepared to listen to argument but he asked the committee to proceed, with the Bill and see how tar it could get. . The Prime Minister said the Bill was . a policy. Bill and 'its main, points must go through. ■ Tiiore was no question about that, . There were portions of the . Bill about which there were, serious •differences of opinion, on ttose portions they were prepared to listen to discussion but the main provisions of the Bill represented the considered opinions of the Government # . / Tiiere was a real need for the Bill, and to ; iail to pass the measure would amount to neglect to duty . He wished members clearly to understand that. v A Party Measure? The Loader of the Opposition said had not seen the evidence - ..taken before the select committee and ■ theywanted to see it before they wont ■on .with the .Bill, so that -iey might , understand The.Minister in •charge of the'BilT had said that it was not a party measure but the Prime .Minister said it was a policy Bill and must go through • It would be interesting to see how Reform members would . vote on it.” If the Government would indicate on what clauses it .was prepared to compromise, the atmosphere would, be cleared considerably, Mr. W. E. Parry declared the Prime Minister dare not attempt to. force the Bm through as a party measure, bo- ’ -cause too many of his own supporters • were against it. Stiff if he would indicate which 1 clauses he would not insist Vupon, the whole 1 position 'flight be eon ' siderably eased. - - Amendments .Rejected. . Up to 9.30 p.m. rio progress’ had been - triad 3 with . the- Bill; several Government supporters giving 1 why ihe measure should be passed ahd the greater number of those opjtoded to it

giving - other reasons why it should not', ho parsed. At 10.30, Mr; Savage, continuing his opposition, moved as an amendment the altering pf the' date of .the coming into operation of the B;ll from January 1, 1929, to January 1, 1930/ This, he said, Would, give people further time to. consider the effect- of the Hill. The Minister (Mr. Young) said he was not able to accept the amendment. The opposition then proceeded to take delay as the theme of their speeches. At 11.59, a division was taken on Mr. Savage’s amendment, when it was rejected'by 30 to lo and the date 1929““ was retained, but the opposition continued. At 12.50 a.m. Mr. Savage intimated that “by wav of relaxation'’, he would move: to report progress. This ho did, but on. a division, his motion was rejected by 35 to 14 and the stonewall as the opposition had now become, went on., . . Up to 2 a.m., there was no evidence of a relaxation of the opposition to the indications Wng in the direction of an all-night sitting, whep the telegraph office closed.