DIVORCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22099, 1 November 1933, Page 4

DIVORCE

INSANITY GROUND NOT FOR NEW SOUTH WALES. (From Odb Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, October 19. The New South Wales Assembly ou Tuesday night gave a decisive vote on a question which for weeks past has divided the community into two camps and been the direct cause of countless heated arguments. A private member, Mr A. S. Henry, hailing from a country electorate, had introduced a Bill which provided two new grounds for divorce—insanity when certified as incurable, and separation for seven years. The Government, without expressing an opinion one way or the other, graciously allowed the Bill to reach the second reading stage and when the crucial vote came MiHenry could muster only eight votes, including that of one Minister. The scene when the division was taken provided a remarkable climax to a problem which at one time seemed likely to shake the foundations of the Church and the State. There was a crowded House when on the motion for the second reading Mr Henry explained the purpose of the Bill. He said that in New South Wales at present there were no fewer than 13 grounds for divorce. Legislation' similar to his Bill had been passed by Victoria, Queensland. South Australia, Western Australia, and New Zealand. Nearly 75 per cent, of the. commonsense opinion of the State was in favour of the Bill, all laws to bj framed to assist good conduct much more than to punish bad conduct. He was not an iconoclast seeking to break up domestic happiness. He was merely seeking to bring New South Wales into step with the rest of Australia, tf either a husband or a wife was unfortunately incarcerated in an asylum for years it was useless to pretend that the marriage was. persisting. Those people should be given some hope of human happiness, otherwise there was a danger of drawing them into illicit unions. There were 50(59 persons in asylums in New South Wales who had been there for five years or more, and 4551 persons who had been there for seven years or more. Between 1500 and 2000 were married. His was not a Bill to make marriage pasy, he claimed. His arguments, however, failed to impress most of the other members, but opponents of the Bill were most anxious to place on record an assertion that they had not been influenced by outside bodies. These statements probably concerned the Church, which has been most active in ranging public opinion against the insanity clauses of the Bill. It was pointed out during the speeches that the marriage contract was a solemn one and both parties t', it should be forced to stand up to their obligations. It was important to not; that in recent years 24 people who had been in mental hospitals for three years or more had recovered. What would be the fate of a woman who on recovery found that her home had gone and that she was deserted by those whom she thought loved her best? It was quickly seen that the Bill had no chance of passing and a vote was taken much sooner than expected. There were 50 members against the measure and only eight in favour of it.