CHARITABLE AID CONFERENCE.
The conference of delegatee of tho various charitable aid districts of the colony was continued at the Council Chambers yesterday.
THE QUESTION OP REVENUE. Mr F. Kveret (Nelson) raised the question of obtaining charitable aid revenue by moving that tho Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act be amended, ao that tbo total cost of bosrital and charitable institutions bo charged ■)o the Consolidated Fund. Mr Bellringer (Taranaki) seconded the motion. Mr Win. Booth (Wellington) opposed the motion, and the Hon S. F. Shrimski (Oanmru) and Mr A. M. Carmiohael (Southland) supported it. Mr J. McGowan (Thames) opposed the proposal and pointed oat that if they departed from tho principle that the people who paid the money should have the distribution of it they were getting on to dangerous ground. To provide labour so that applicants might work to earn tho assistance they received he considered in a measure good, but charitable aid should be a means of keeping men from want, and not a means of enabling the applicants to compete with the ordinary free labourer who did not. require charitable aid. Mr P. J. O’Regan, M.H.R, (fnangahua), said that be was sorry to hear one or two speakers bring in the question of property. Ho said deliberately that before the Conference would carry weight with the Government; they must represent the people of the colony, and not the property. The local franchise must be also considerably liberalised. The proposal before them was one for indirect taxation, and that was only another name for corruption. The question ot how to work the Old Ago Pension Fund would, if dealt with, settle the whole matter. Mr H. Brown (Hutt) opposed the motion, and thought tho money should come out of the Property and Income Tax, and bo left to each Charitable Aid Board in its own district to deal with, the boards to be elected by the people. Mr J. Talbot (Timaru) said at present the ratepayers had the whole administration. The Consolidated Fund contributed its share, and was not represented on the boards. It would be much better,he thought, if tho Consolidated Fund were Irepresented. Mr J. Bollard, M.H.R. (Auckland), did not complain of the system of raising the money, but the people who dealt with it. . Mr W. H. Hall (Southland) opposed the motion and Mr D. Roche (Southland) supported it. Mr 0. MoWhirter (Westland) thought that tho boards should have direct control of the revenue at their command. Mr T. C. Norris (Christchurch) thought that n-,t only should tho Government be exempt from finding pound for pound, but it should pay nothing. The whole of tho charitable aid revenue should come out of.the land. ~ ~ Mr W. Crowthor, M.H.R.. (Auckland), agreed that there were too many boards, but he would not disturb tho present system.^ The Chairman said that indirect taxation meant corruption. If outdoor relief could be minimised a great deal of the burden wjuld be taken off the shoulders of the ratepayers. Mr E. Everet replied, and the motion was put and lost by 9 to 14.
OUTrOOP. BELIEF. ' Mr William Booth (Wellington), speaking in connection with outdoor relief and the consideration of the abolition of separate institutions, sai l they contained the kernel of the whole matter, dome re-arrangement was required in the system of outdoor relief.' Th e present arrangement was a vicious one. A local body contributed and did not get a quid pro quo. The result was that next year it contributed less. Going on to speak of the desertion of women by their husbands and seducers, ho said it was impossible at present to get at these men, and some legislation was wanted in that direction. They- had another class. Owing to trade restrictions of one kind and another feeble men and women wore thrust out at an earlier age than tho others. In proportion to the population of the country the amount spent in charitable aid was a disgrace to the country, Mr J. Bollard, M.H.E., moved, That in the opinion of this Conference the system of outdoor relief bo abolished, with a view to establishing a system of indoor relief. ’ He believed there would.be an immediate fallingoil in the number of applicants; If people wanted relief and could work, work could bo‘ found for them. It was the only way to minimise the amount spent for tho purpose of charitable aid. . , Mr P. J. O’Begah, M.H.E., asked if they were to abolish outdoor relief with a view to establishing workhouses ? If so ha would strongly oppose it. '■ He hoped tho country; would recoil with horror from such an extremely cruel proposal. , Mr J. Talbot and Mr E. Evorot agreed with Mr O’Kegan. ■ • The Hon S. B. Shrimski could nit see the difference between inside and outside relief. There was no disgrace attached to either. Ho strongly supported Mrßollard. Mr McLean said it would be undesirable to force casual cases into these institutions, where they would got the taint of pauperism. The trouble, however, was how to get over the difficulty of others sharing the rations only intended for tho wives and children. After luncheon the debate on Mr Bollard's proposal was continued by Mr W. H. Hall, who opposed the*" motion to abolish out-door relief. , , ~ _ Mr Orowther supported the motion. In these homes, he contended, it would be feasible to teaoh theao people self-reliance. He was in sympathy with tho motion, although ho could not see that it could bo oarriod into effect. < . - , Mr Bollard asked leave to insert the word “partially " before “ abolish’’ in his motion. Mr T. 0. Norris proposed that the alteration should be to the effect that out-door relief be abolished so far as to revive the benevolent instincts of the people in the direction of assisting doaetving oases, as distinguished from those who would be more properly treated within the four walls of some institution. Ha did not want to go the length of the English workhouse system, but relief in institutions was in the opinion of the Board he represented preferable to thepresent outdoor system. The time was ripe for tho abolition, as fat as practicable, of the present wholesale system of out-rehet. Ho thought if the ratepayer was not asked to bear the whole expense, but if his money was used for deserving cases, then they might have a ohanoe of getting charitable people to form benevolent societies of their own. There was a wide distinction between chanty and P °Mr Bollard’s motion was then withdrawn, and Mr Norris’ motion became the substanMr Bollard explained that the class of people he wanted to deal with was that to which belonged professional paupers, people who, paupers themselves, were rearing illegitimate children in pauperism. The present system was quite rotten. , Mr Everet said in Nelson they found that tho system of out-door relief was infinitely cheaper than the in-door system. Messrs Bellringer and P. Best (Nelson) opposed thought it would bo a terrible mistake to fall back upon the system in the Old Country. - - , ...... ~ The Chairman saw that if it was too opinion of the Coherence that oat-door relief, was not satisfactory they coma consider to. amend it without going to the extreme of what-was Dialled-the workhouse test. The motion did not meet the case, at all. It merely recognised the value of voluntary agencies. If something more satis* factory was not passed it would speak very little for the value of the Conference, it suggest d nothin? of importance. He would suggest an amendment, ** That in the opinion OH this Conference the system of oat-door relief wns unsatisfactory, and required amendment in the direction of considerable
J limitation in the amount of expenditure on out-door relief, and that a system I relief by homes, farms and mdustoal estab-li-hments bo, as far as possible, substituted. Either that, ho added, or that a committee be drawn up to report on the matter. . Messrs Bollard and Norris, the movers or the two original motions, intimated that suen an amendment would be satisfactory to them. ' . Mr William Booth said it was a question whether there was any chance of getting the complete reform they were aiming at so long as they had tho enervating influence that must always arise from the of charitable aid while a subsidy from the Government. He thought that it the obligation rested with tne districts to provide what was required by direct taxation, then they would be doing some effectual After further discussion, it was decided, on ihu motion of the Chairman, “ That the system of outdoor relief is unsatisfactory and requires amendment, and that a committee of seven members be appointed to report on the system and the required reforms, the committee to discuss outdoor relief, the question of establishing farms and industrial establishments and the question of desertion. ’ THE ABOLITION OF BEPABATE INSTITUTIONS. • .... The discussion of the question of abolishing separate institutions was then gone on : with. Mr Wm. Booth referred to the dissatisfaction of the country districts at the way in which their money was being distributed in the centres. He was satisfied that if the city boards were responsible directly to the ratepayers for the distribution of moneys they would exercise a deal more care. The tendency of tho present system was towards great laxity. As an indication of the course he desired to take, he *s°^®* “That this Conference is of opinion that tne distribution of charitable aid should rest with those who provide the money ; that each county should levy the rate to provide for its own need ; that such rate should cover the county and all boroughs within its boundaries having a less population than 2000; that the council of each county should be the charitable aid board of such county ; that boroughs of a larger population than 2000 should from their own revenue or by a separate rate provide for and nominate a charitable aid board to distribute the rate within its own boundaries.” He thought this would meet the case. Mr Carmichael seconded the motion. . ’ Mr MoWhirter moved, “ That oonaideration of tho motion should be adjourned. It was the most important thing that had come before the Conference, and if they had it in the newspapers first so that they could discuss it it would be better. Mr Talbot moved an amending motion, “ That in the opinion of the Conference the system which obtains in many hospital and charitable aid districts by which charitable aid is obtained and distributed by separate institutions should be abolished and the distribution vested in the Charitable Aid Board.” Mr MoWhirter contended that the Act required amendment to' give tho boards the power to control the institutions. Mr Talbot’s amendment was then put and carried. . , The Conference adjourned till 10 o clock this morning. . Mr P. J. O’Regan has given notice of motion for consideration to-day that the Government provide an endowment of land for the purpose of erectingjold people’s homes.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM18971020.2.19
Bibliographic details
New Zealand Times, Volume LXVI, Issue 3262, 20 October 1897, Page 3
Word Count
1,824CHARITABLE AID CONFERENCE. New Zealand Times, Volume LXVI, Issue 3262, 20 October 1897, Page 3
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.