I ask the House not to accept this amendment. Senator Duffy adverts to the possibility of a person who is incapable of what is termed "ordinary proper conduct" being treated as a lunatic. I should like to take advantage of this discussion to remind him that under this Bill nobody will be treated as a lunatic. We are dealing now with persons of unsound mind or suffering from mental disorders, and we have, I hope, got away from the previous conception of lunacy and all that it implies.
We look, as I stated on the Second Reading, on mental disorders or derangements as having no particular stigma attached to them. We look upon them as being much in the same category as diseases of the body. I do not think it is necessary to label them, but I should be sorry to find the House reverting to the old conception, which lasted far too long in this country, regarding disorders of the mind. Although this definition of addict is new to the House, and to our statutory code, it is very old in its origin. On this whole question of the inclusion of addicts in the scope of the Bill, a tremendous lot could be said. We could have very interesting debates on the question of addiction to drugs, and perhaps more particularly addiction to alcohol, and as to how far that constitutes a contributing factor to subsequent mental disorder. In fact, five years ago, I raised this matter in the Department. Many members of the House will, in their own experience, have come across such cases where people have been addicted to drugs, particularly to alcohol, and where, by reason of the fact that no machinery had been provided for dealing properly with these unfortunate people, tragedies very often occurred.
I have in my experience and practice met with a considerable number of such cases. The law relating to inebriates is of no assistance to us in the solution of this particular problem. Under the law relating to inebriates and drunkards, a person has to be convicted a number of times in court, and then the court has the power to commit such people to a term of detention in an institution provided for the purpose. Again, that is the old criminal setting, and it does not deal with the problem in accordance with the present-day approach to it at all.
The case with which most of us would be concerned is that which we are trying to provide for in this particular measure—the type of case which never comes before the court at all. When it reaches the stage that a person is brought into the criminal courts or the ordinary courts, and convicted of drunkenness a number of times, and sent to an institution because of these convictions, the case has reached a stage where, very possibly, scientific treatment might not have very much chance to produce the best results.
Senator Duffy invites me to define what constitutes "proper conduct". Well, I shall not undertake to do that. The House will bear in mind that a person will not be recommended for reception in an institution as a temporary patient under this section unless he is incapable of ordinary proper conduct by reason of his addiction to drugs. If the Senator has in mind, or if it should be passing through the mind of any member of the House, that there is a possibility of the reception of a person who might occasionally indulge in alcohol, or, let us say, any other drug, that is not the intention of the Bill. In fact, the section could not apply to such persons. The point is that their incapacity properly to conduct themselves must be due to their addiction to drugs. I do not think that it would be possible for anybody to define in this or in any other Act how improper the conduct would be in such a setting, and we must bear in mind that the medical advisers who will make the recommendation will have intimate knowledge of the patient's conduct and habits. In case he should err—and medical men can err and sometimes do —the patient will not be received in the institution until the resident medical superintendent is satisfied that by reason of his addiction to drugs he ought to be detained, either because he constitutes a danger to himself or a danger to others, or is guilty of improper conduct by reason of his addiction to drugs.
I do not suppose that it is necessary to delay the House on this subject, unless I refer to a definition of inebriates which I find in the report of a commission set up as far back as 1908. When I raised this matter with the Department some five years ago all my technical and professional advisers were very keen on the idea of trying to make some statutory provision under which people addicted to drugs could be detained for a sufficient period to permit of scientific treatment and of bringing the craving to an end. They were all very keen on it, but the trouble was that it was a very difficult matter to cover in law. The result of my raising the point brought to light a very comprehensive report of an inquiry set up in 1908 by Mr. Gladstone. It is interesting to note that the machinery recommended by that commission for the treatment of addicts bears close resemblance to the machinery we are now providing for the treatment of mental diseases. A definition was constructed by that commission for the purpose of suggested legislation. It was:
"An inebriate is a person who habitually takes or uses any intoxicant or toxic thing, and while under the influence of such thing or things or under the influence of the effects thereof is (a) a danger to himself or others, (b) a cause of harm or serious annoyance to his family or others, (c) incapable of managing himself or his affairs or of ordinary proper conduct."
It is a much more far-reaching definition than we have attached to the word "addict" in the Bill.