“DEFECTIVES BILL LIKE CURATE’S EGG.”

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18576, 26 September 1928, Page 3

“DEFECTIVES BILL LIKE CURATE’S EGG.”

MR WILFORD URGES HOUSE TO POSTPONE THE DEBATE. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, September 25. The House of Representatives to-day went into committee on the Mental Defectives Act Amendment Bill. The leader of the Opposition said he hoped the Government would not go on with the Bill this session. It was a far too serious matter to be forced through at that stage of the session. It was true that the committee had made certain amendments in clauses, but the difference was not sufficient to justify those who were originally opposed to the Bill in supporting it now. He went on to detail his objections to individual clauses, which, he said, bristled with dangers. lie suggested holding the measure over to permit of more mature consideration. Mr Wilford said the Bill was like the curate’s egg, i.t was good and bad in places. There was something in it that he liked, but there were other things in it he could not support. lie urged postponement. Mr Forbes and Mr Fraser supported this course. Mr Savage said that delay was important, because fresh evidence might be forthcoming. He doubted if three members of the House had had time to read the evidence already tendered, and more time was necessary to do it. It might ty; found that, after all, they were only dealing with effects and not with causes. Mr Lvsnar said that he was greatlydisappointed with the Bill. It was very dangerous in some respects, and he hoped it would not lie forced through this session. The present law was bad enough, but this Bill was worse. It was an insult to the Do minion, and members would be justified in doing everything warranted by the forms of the House to prevent the Bill going on the Statute Book. Mr Atmore said that in his opinion public feeling was not so much against the Bill as it was in favour of postponement. Everj-one was agreed that the Minister was honest in his endeavour, but the feeling was that time was required to obtain further knowledge and information on the subject, which had baffled men in all countries. Mr Harris and Sir Joseph Ward, while admiring the courage of the Minister in tackling so big a subject, advised caution. BILL NOT RUSHED. The Hon J. A. Young, Minister in charge of the Bill, said he welcomed the discussion so far as it had gone. The burden of the speeches was. that the Bill was being rushed. That, was not so. As far back as 1924 Sir Maui Pomare first introduced such a Bill. In 1925 a committee sat and 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 was sent abroad to collect data, and on this data the present Bill was drafted. It had been before a special committee, 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. The Bill provided a proper method of treatment for these people. That was the problem they had to face. The proposal to introduce sterilisation was not the main purpose of the Bill. That clause had been 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 the discussion indicated that they should be postponed. He was prepared to listen to argument, but he asked the committee to proceed with the Biil, and see how far they could get. MUST GO THROUGH. The Prime Minister said the Bill was a policy Bill, and its main points must go through. There was no question about that. There were portions of the Bill about which there were serious differences of opinion. On those portions they were prepared to listen to discussion, but the main provisions of the Bill represented the considered opinion of the Government. There was real need for the Bill, and to fail to pass the measure would amount to neglect of duty. lie wished members clearly to understand that. The Leader of the Opposition said that members had not seen the evidence taken before the select committee; and they wanted to see it before they went on with the Bill, so that they might understand it. The Minister in charge of the Bill had said that it. was not a party measure, but the Prime Minister had 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 they were prepared to compromise, the atmosphere would be cleared considerably. Mr Parry declared that the Prime Minister dare not attempt to force the Bill through as a party measure, because too many of his own supporters were against it. Still, if he would indicate which clauses he would not insist

upon, the whole position might be considerably eased. Up to 9.30 p.m. no progress had been made with the Bill, several Government supporters giving reasons why the measure should be passed, and the greater number of those opposed to it giving other reasons why it should not be passed. The position was in the nature of a deadlock. AN AMENDMENT. At 10.30 p.m. Mr Savage, continuing the opposition, moved an amendment altering the date of the coming into operation of the Bill from January 1. 1929, to January 1, 1930. This, he said would give people further time to consider the effect of the Bill. The Minister said he was not able to accept the amendment. The Opposition then proceeded to take delay as the theme of their speeches. At 11.50 p.m. a division was taken on Mr Savage’s amendment, when II was rejected by 36 to 15, and the date 1929 was retained, but opposition conj tinued. STONEWALL CONTINUES. At 12.50 a.m. Mr Savage intimated that “by way of relaxation” he would move to report progress. This he did, but on a division his motion was rejected by 35 to 14. The stonewall, for such the opposition had now obviously become, went Up to 2 a.m. there was no evidence of relaxation of opposition to the Bill', indications being in direction of an all night sitting. 'Left sitting).