DESTITUTE PERSONS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 38, 13 August 1910, Page 9

DESTITUTE PERSONS.

GOVERNMENT'S NEW BILL. SECOND READING CARRIED. The debate on the second reading of j the Destitute Persons Amendment Bill was continued in the Legislative Council yesterday after The Post went to press. The Hon. C. M. Luke wondered whether the additional responsibilities imposed under the Bill on relatives would interfere with the marriage rate or whether existing incentives to thrift would be lessened. Any Bill having such a tendency should not be allowed to get on the Statute-book of this country. Outside these two points the Bill would have his hearty support. The Hon. J. T. Paul, while he congratulated the Government on the introduction of the Bill, said he believed jome of the clauses would require amendment. He did not think any of the supposititious cases pictured would ever occur in fact. The Bill tried genuinely to make absconding fathers realise and fulfil their liabilities towards their children. He could not see for a moment that the Bill in its working would be a deterrent to matrimony. He was quite* certain that when Mr. Luke was about to enter into the holy bonds of matrimony he thought only of the lady of his choice, and the possibility of having to maintain half a dozen relatives would not have deterred him. The Hon. J. E. Jenkinson, referring to clause 16, urged that where a maintenance order was made against any person it should take precedence over other debts. The Attorney-General : That makes a, man's creditors fag for the support of his children. Mr. Jenkinson : That may be so, but many people argue that there should not be so much credit. Dr. Findlay : That is another question. Mr. Jenkinson, however, said he adhered to the view he had expressed Some means other than imprisonment, m the case of a man who ignored an order for maintenance, would h.ive to be devised. Imprisonment did not help a deserted wife or children in any way. In the course of his reply Dr. Findlay admitted that details of the Bill might have to be altered, but they had to make the way of the wife deserter more difficut. The Attorney-General elaborated some of the points he had made in his opening address, and pointed out that one charitable institution in New Zealand last year had contributed to tht> maintenance of 1842 people, and of these 1112 were children. The cost entailed on the State each year for charitable aid was little short of £100,000, and a large amount of it was directly due to the maintenance of children. New Zealand would never tolerate any person being starved to death. He expounded the principle that every near relative should have a duty coj-t on him of providing for the necessities of near relatives where he could. The present destitute persons law had not acted oppressively in any one case. The provisions of the Bill relating to the responsibilities of near relatives would, if passed, relieve the public of a burden of several thousands of pounds. He was (after making diie enquiries') in a position to say that the wealthy people of the country were not discharging their fair burdens in the direction of maintaining relatives in mental asylums and industrial schools. As a matter of fact many wealthy people m New Zealand at the present time were allowing near relatives to be a burden on the State. He had received illustrations of neglect on the part of wealthy people only that day which were little short of disgraceful. He explained the provisions of the existing law, which, he said, enabled a man at the present time to leave his wife and children in New Zealand with impunity. The Bill would remedy this. The second reading of the. Bill was agreed to on the voices, and the measure was referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. The Council then adjourned until Wednesday, at 2.50 p.m.