Strong Opposition Shown To Mental Defectives Bill.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18576, 26 September 1928, Page 1

Strong Opposition Shown To Mental Defectives Bill.

DIVISION BELLS ROUSE M.P.’S FROM SLUMBER WHEN VOTE TAKEN ON CONTENTIOUS CLAUSES

WHEN the House of Representatives went into Committee on the Mental Defectives Act Amendment Bill, the measure with strong opposition. In view of the sharp division of opinion, it was suggested that the Bill might be postponed, but Mr Coates replied that the Bill was a policy one and its main points must go through. Opposition to the Bill developed into a stonewall, and it was four o’cock before the first clause was passed. Discussion continued till 7 a.m., when an adjournment was made till 9 a.m.

Pc-P Press Association. WELLINGTON, September 26. After the Telegraph Office closed opposition to the Mental Defectives Bill continued. Labour speakers being answered by Messrs Samuel, Kyle, Forsyth and the Hon R. A. Wright. Shortly before 4 a.m. Mr Holland made an appeal to the Minister in charge of the Bill to make a declaration as to what course he proposed to take with regard to the contentious clauses, especially Clause 25 providing for sterilisation, his contentiort being that if the Minister would do this the situation would be cleared and the nbncontentious clauses might be proceeded with.

The Minister, however, did not make a tty statement, and at four o’clock a division was taken on the first clause which was agreed to by 33 to 11. The second clause establishing a Department of Mental Hospitals and consequential officers was strongly objected to by Mr Lysnar, who maintained that the present law gave all the necessary power and this proposal was not going to do any good. Mr Veitch feared that this new department was going to swell the ranks of the Civil Service and increase the irresponsible expenditure which was now going on. The Minister replied that it would not increase appropriations in the least. The position now was that the a yj said certain things were to be done, but it did not say who was to do it, and this clause made good this lefect. The clause passed. All went well until Clause 7 defining a ‘‘mentally defective person” and ‘anti-social conduct” was reached, whereupon the Minister was asked for explanations. The Minister said that this was one of the fundamental clauses of the Bill which he could not sacrifice. He however was prepared to receive helpful and constructive suggestions and consider them. The clause was the result of expert opinion and the public were safeguarded by the fact that the clause would not operate unless there was both mental deficiency and guilty antiocial conduct. Mr Fraser pressed for more precise lefinitions and particular cases that .night be affected by the clause. Mr L3*snar attacked the clause, declaring that it was a radical departure from the English law and was dangerous in the extreme. It was a most improper thing that the House should be asked to discuss such a vital question at five o’clock in the morning when only two Ministers were present and most members were asleep. Mr Sullivan said that he thought the clause was dangerously wide and under it almost anyone might be netted in if he were original enough to have departed from the conventional path.

Mr Field contended that the Minister might be much more certain of the meaning of the clause than he appeared to be before he passed it. Somebody had to interpret it, but nobody seemed to know what it meant and injustice might be done. The Minister declared that he was quite satisfied in his own mind what the clause meant. In his opiniop “ anti-social ” meant criminal. On these lines the discussion proceeded for two hours, and at 6 am. Mr Lysnar called fpr a division on the clause, as he said that it would bring members from their slumbers. The division resulted in the clause being passed by 30 to 10. The Leader of the Opposition took strong exception to Clause 8, providing for the reception of patients into mental hospitals. This method he described as “ unthinkable.” The Minister said that it was really strengthening the present position under which one medical officer could commit. This clause required two medical men to commit: lie was prepared to withdraw paragraph 6 of the clause, and this was done, but that did not satisfy Mr Lj-snar, who said that the clause was the worst in the Bill. It was an insult to the people of the Dominion. It was far too easy to put people into mental institutions, and he would not facilitate the passage of the Bill by one fraction of a minute. At this point he was rung down and the clause was passed before he could call for a division. In Clause 11 Mr Mason (Eden) objected to the Controller-General of Prisons being on the board. Mental defectives were not being sent to prison, and it would be well to keep the idea of criminality out of the question as far as possible. Mr Lysnar objected to other members of the board as giving too. much power to the Director-General of Mental Hospitals. The board should be quite independent. The Minister said that the ControllerGeneral of Prisons was an officer skilled in criminology and in handling unusual people. He therefore seemed to be an appropriate person to be on the board. On the clause being put Mr called for a division but did not press for it when the bells were rung. The Opposition next took exception to Clause 15, providing for the compilation of a register of mentally deficient persons, contending that children who were merely “ backward ” should not be included, but should be kept in the school system. The Minister agreed to amend the clause accordingly, and the clause was passed. At seven o’clock the Chairman of Committees announced that out of consideration for members he would leave the chair and resume it again at 9 a.m., the Prime Minister intimating that on the passing of the third reading the House would adjourn till 7.30 p.m.