HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIV, Issue 4899, 30 July 1877, Page 3

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

[f'RKS.S AGENCY. J Government Builuin-os, Wellington, Saturday. Tho House resumed last night at 7.30 p.m. ciiaritarm: jv.stitutjons rill. Upon the Charitable Institutions Bill, Dr. WALLIS considered the measure vague in some respects and defective in others. He considered the destitute had an inalienable right to bo assisted by society, and it was evident to him that the colony was rapidly approaching the poor law system, thoug'-i taxation was already so depressing that he feared there would be nothing left to tax when the call to do so for the poor came upon the colony. Ambitious and comprehensive as tho bill -was, it passed over two most important classes of institutions, namely, for reclaiming drunkards and fallen women. As to supporting institution;! for the poor, the burden he thought ought to be thrown upon the waste lands of the colony. No more righteous burden could be conceived.

Mr. STEVEN,S said there could lie no measure of more social importance than this, but lie disapproved of handing over existing institutions to the first fifty men who clioso to put their hands in their pockets and subscribe a miserable sum. He thought the bill generally so inadequate to the work it proposed to deal with that he would move it be read that day six months, aud that, too, without any hostility to Government. The existing institutions of the colony were dealing, and effectually, with four classes of destitute—such as those destitute from accident and disease, those destitute through parents' deaths, and destitute from other causes. The financial arrangements: of the bill were not at all calculated to achieve the object contemplated. What sort of provi siou had they for outside relief ? and if nothin" was raised in a district v:rre the poor and destitute to be neglected, because Government only proposed to qive equivalent to what was locally raised ? He disapproved

of tho principlo of throwing off the State the duty of befriending those who failed in the race of lif:i often throuiih no fault of their own, and living those who were willing t<» Lure to bear all the burden, while the uncharitable n. Ed givo--nothing. He knew there were lots ( f people who would say " The State -night to provide for these institution!?, and we decline to give anything," and he professed to know something of the matter, in no ease should voluntary contributions be made the basis of the financial arrangements of th<\~e institutions. Nothing but failure could ensue from such a system. He moved, "That the bill be read that d-y six months. The PREMI-EU thought the views or the last speaker had been much narrowed, though living iu a community where they had always been able to support their destitute without : the S'HU'T-* to put their hands in their pockets. When the provinces were taken over the annual cost of these . institutions was £55,000, and Canterbury alone was spending £20,000. What the hon. gentleman proposed as a means of dealing with charitable institutions was simply a board of guardians, and let no ono know where tho money came from, only let it comc from the consolidated reven.ic. Isut he forgot Government was proposing nothing ucw. The system worked well in Otago, and none of tho evil effects dreaded had i arisen. The real point at issue was, j should they levy a poor rate ? That, he thought, would not be acceptable, nor, indeed way it required. He had every confidence in the measure. It worked in other countries. .No doubt time would be required to bring the bill into proper working, but no difficulty need arise on that score, as they proposed to tako power to provide for those services until such time as the machinery of the bill comes into operation. It appeared to him that the speech of the hon. member who had sat down, when reduced to a few words, meant merely commission, and nothing more. Me asked the Honse whether they wero to put their hands into the pockets of tho country, without evoking prirate subscriptions. Mr. GISBORNK supported tho second

reading because it supplied machinery for dealing locally with charitable institutions,

though there were many iniporfeetions in the bill which might be removed in committee. The principle of the bill, however, was sound. Any central system of management must lead to extravagance and mismanagement. In England the State did not recognise charitable institutions. It only provided for paupers. Their hospitals and other charitable institutions were mauaged by private persons, and they were not a disgrace to the country. 110 did not think it would be well, however, to throw all existing institutions out of joint by trustiug them alone to private subscriptions, and he was glad to know Government would see to that matter. In managing the institutions, the country and the local districts should be represented, and he thought the Boards should be composed jointly of those persons and of subscribers, lie thought the Canterbury gentlemen had nothing to boast of in the way of charitable administration, for the expenditure in that province had been

enormous as compared with the other parts of the colony, iio had even heard that iu that province women came bringing children in their perambulators to claim charitable

Air. IvELLY said the system proposed had keen tried in Taranaki, and Has not a success. But the explanation given by the Premier, had induced him to support the second reading, though he originally meant to oppose it.

Mr. KKES opposed the bill : first, because there was 110 compulsion, and no responsibility cast upon ai^'om, 1 . There wa.3 no restraint upon the mauagers,—nothing to prevent them refusing charitable aid to

anyone against whom they conceived a dislike, "whether justly or not, and it was known that these things were done, for managers were but human. The Stato was

obliged to provide for the criminal, poor, and yet they wanted to throw the burden of providing for tho respectable poor. According to John Stuart Mill, that was paying a premium upon crime. The hon. gentleman quoted at length from Mill in support of his argument that the .State should provide for the destitute, and under the old Provincial Institutions all these service were well managed without begging from anybody. It was a mistake in any ease to throw the burden upon the consolidated revenue. They should devise some bettor scheme, whereby tho well-to-do class might be made to contribute, in proportion to their ability to do so. Anything of the kind should not be left to voluntary subscription. It appeared to him the very best plan would be to lev}' an income tax off which to provide for the support of tlie poor. He took especial objection to the wholesale way in which power was conferred on the Governor, while there was not the slightest compulsion put up >n the Board of Guardians. In fact, the bill was worth no more than ao much waste paper. This bill was an attempt to get rid alike of the cost of keeping up charitable institutions, and of the trouble which ought to fall upon them after having abolished the form of government which formerl}' managed these institutions, and managed them well. Mr. TKAVEKS considered the bill utterly uusuitcd to carry out the objects; in view. However well voluntary contributions worked at home thij colony was too j'oung for such a '-system. It was well to invite voluntary contributions, but the real burden should be made to fall upon the State. These prccarious resources would never do. It the bill became law to-morrow it would be found an utter failure. He thought it ought to be withdrawn, and one differently drawn substituted. In any ease ho declined to treat the matter as a party question. In order to enable tho Government to withdraw the bill, ho hoped the member for Christchurch City would withdraw his amendment. He thought the Government should, when submitting measures of this kind, have brought down statistics to show what grounds they had for their expectations. His opinion was that the best plan would be direct taxation.

Mr. WAKEFIELD said ho was glad to learn from the Premier that the bill did not mean tbat it said they were to pass a bill that neither said what it meant nor meant what it said. The hon. member commented upon the language used last session by the present mover of the bill, during the Separation debato, in referring to tho sweeping away of all those institutions which flourished under them. He could not reconcile the opinion of that hon. member now. Last session when ho supported tho abolition measure, lie did so upon the understanding that tho Government would take over all the responsibilities of the provinces, but they had violated that pl-id»o in the most reckless manner. The Premier asked tliein whether they were to support the charitable institutions out of the pocket of the colony or evoke private contributions? He denied that it was any part of tho duties of the Legislature to evoke charity from private individuals. When the Government swept away provincial institutions, they should have met their responsibilities, &c. ; and if those Governments were able to support charitable institutions, why should not tho General Government bo better able to do so ? Tho change was supposed to have effected an economy. The only answer to this was, that the colonial revenue was not able to bear it. Well, if that were so, why should not the Treasurer come down and say so, and place a tax upon property. If he did that he would liavo a majority of the House with him. It v.-as perfectly absurd to suppose that the whole burden should be thrust upon the towns alone. It was perfectly astonishing that the .Minister of-Lands could have brought in such a trumpery measure. Ho hoped iho bill would bo withdrawn, and another mensure brought down.

Mr. BALLANCK held that it was the duty of tlx; Legislature to legislate in this matter in the direction of evoking privato charity. The question was well put when it was said that it was cither a poor Jaw or .some system of this sort, hut all the modern authors agreed that the effect of the Poor Laws at home was most ischievous. He agreed with the mover of the bill that a centraliatic system of granting aid was likely to bo abused and he undiseriminating. While looking upon the bill as having imperfcotiona he held its principle was in the right direction, it appeared to him that all the legislation of last year was to throw the burden of institutions of the kind under consideration upon the localities. He did uot understand why the system failed at Taranaki while it succeeded in Wanganui, unless ifc wus tliMt, becau:-'') Taranaki was .spoiled by being accustomed to lean on the General Koveriunent. The benevolent institutions at Wanganui was entirely supported by private

subscription, and they not only fulfilled all their obligations towards their poor, but actually found money to send one patient to be treated at home. The natural inference from tiiis was that their ability to lullil their functions would be increased by the subsidy proposed under the bill. Ihe principle of the bill was too valuable to be thrown away, and lie would vo*e for the second reading. Mr. LUiMSDKN" supported t.ic hccoiul rending, and instanced the excellent way in 1 which the hernial -'it 1 nvcrcargih managed under the syuteiu of assistance and control. There was much in the bill he did not; approve of, but its principle wa3 good, i>nd it would be a great mis rake if not gone on with. Mr. 1/IJiSK thought there was 110 principle in the hill at all. 11 evidenced a want of power to grapple with the subject. He regretted to see that the first effort of tho Government to build up the laws of the future was a decidcd failure, tlo would not pretend I to point out the separate defects, for it was 1 one vast defect, and was a tolerable indication of the capacity of the Government for administration. Tho bill halted between two opinions, aud was afraid to say anything j iulregard to responsibility. As to the subsidies | proposed in the bill, ho had little faith in 1 them. Tho provinces had been promised certain things, but thoy never got them On tho contrary, they were put to death by the very bauds that made the promises to thoui. The only thing proposed by the j bill was to endeavour to throw upon bencvo- 1 lent peoplo a very onerous duty, indeed— a duty which should fall upon the Government. They had been told this was an attempt to educate the people into be- ; nevolent habits. Perhaps the next thing , would be to educate the people into religion. I T l im bill was au expedient to get over a dif- -- .y by half and-half measures. Jiu hoped tin, bill would be withdrawn, so that Government might introduce a bill that something could l»e done with. It was the most deplorable attempt at legislation over made in the House.

Mr. MURK \ Y-AYNSLUY was opposed to postponing the second reading of the bill. The question must bo grappled with. Mr. yiIRIMSKI opposed tho second reading on the ground that too great a burden was proposed to be thrown upon communities in the colony, especially small ones in the interior. Mr. WOULCOCK said ho was struck by the fact that the greatest oppoueuts of the bill were those who came from large centres, where their charitable institutions had been supported by Provincial Governments. It appeared to him most desirable they should foster self-reliance among th»s people, and the bill tended in that direction. lie cordially supported the spirit of the bill. It being after 12 there were cries "adjourn," when Mr. MONTGOMERY formally moved the adjournment, but the RRUMIEIi objecting, a division was taken, the result being 25 for adjournment, 31 against. Mr. 13URNS said two parties opposed the bill. One was represented by the member for Christchurch, the othor by the member for Franklyn. Both now began to feel the effects of Abolition, aud eacli was anxious to have these services contributed to by other parts of the colony. They wanted to dip their hands into the public purse, but there was a third party that wished to force them to put their hands into their own pockets. He considered the bill a good one. It would be a bad day for the colony if they had to resort to poor laws, which always had a demoralising effect.

Mr FISHER opposed the second reading. In the last year of Provincialism Canterbury spent £20,000 on charitable institution.". They would tind it perfectly impossible to get £14,500 by private subscription.

Mr. KOWE supported the second reading of the bill. He had seven years' experience of au institution managed on the principle embodied in tho bill.

The House adjourned ftt 12.40, the Go vernment not opposing.