HOSPITALS AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS BILL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1290, 16 July 1886, Page 2

HOSPITALS AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS BILL.

The following : a the Hansard report of Mr W. 0. Wtt'ker’a speech upon the second reading cf the Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Act 1885 Amendment Bill :

Mr Walker. -As a member who 1 supp rted the Act of last session with I 8 j the desire to roe it made a practical | 0 j success and the solution of a very great J ac difficulty, and as one who has been 1 endeavouring 11 carry the Act into If ( practical use, I think it It my duty to I p give to the House the results of my last I B( year’s experience so far as the district 11 B , represent Is concerned. I may ray that 11 j stand here in the double capacity of be- I a longing to the district in New Zealand J f ( which is most troubled with this question { c the District of North Canterbury—and I q also as belonging to and, as it were, re- I t presenting the District of Ashbncton, I j which was tacked on to North Canterbury 1 t last year We found ourselves in this I ] position, that we in Ashburton bad I j been doing oar best to support oar own I . hospital, and had been supporting It and 1, maintaining our own charitable aid, until I j we found that hardly anybody else in the I , colony was doing so. So we gave it up, I , and now we find ourselves tacked on to I , : the district in the colony which stands I in the position of being the moat I ! heavily taxed of all for charitable I aid. I need not say, therefore, that I we find ourselves in a most uuplea-1 1 sant position. We have to pay an enor-1 | moua sum per annum according to the I ' provislonsjof the Act of last session ; and 1 have not only to support our own poor, I but have also to meet the exigencies which I have been fostered round the centre in I . Christchurch I believe artificially fos- I tered. I will presently quote a few I a figures to show how egregloualy absurd I 0 are the facts with regard to charitable aid I • in Christchurch, —how it is impossible I Q that they could have increased to the I " amount at which they now stand unless I a by a terrible series of years of neglect; I J how, in fact, many persons must have j gravitated there, not because they be-1 0 longed to the direct, but because they I a found, through some sort of animal inetinct, that Christchurch was the best place j 8 to leave their wives and children in if any-1 thing happened to themselves. With regard to the amendment Bill now before ** us, there are two points which I thing ) “ require special attend m, Ido not think J' the Bill meets them ; but I believe the *’ Premier is willing that the question shou'd be considered whan we go into Com'P mi tee. Tne two questions are, first, vj whether the present basis of taxuiou is a 10 fair one ; and, secondly, the question of 10 fair representation. As rega-ds the first. 98 question, honourable members are no doubt aware t ial the issue wJI bo raije« in the House as to whether that should is be the rateable value of Road Board’s rolls *7, or the property tax Undoubtedly some 1 mra- sf r meeting the present difficulty *7 must be discovered, because as it at pre)n sent stands landed property ii count, y :t » districts is for the support of 30 charitable aid to the extent of 4i, sa, 6s, and even Ss; whereas property in the towns l “ in no instance goes above is 6d, In the 50 pound. The Board to whichlbaiong basex--98 pressed its opinion that the property tax valuation would be a more equitable 10 basis of contribution. lam not prepared to say whether that would meet the 10 difficulty or not ; but the question will 10 have to b« mat and so va.i very soon. If 7> it be not dcna'this }ea ■, then we shall hav ■ *° to faco it another year, because lam quite 38 certain that, as years go on, the proportion ,n of contribution as between town and k P country will be found to ba so unequal >7 that it will not ba borne by the country f 8 people. The second point we shall have df to consider, if not this year, then very ‘ s soon, is that of representation. The Act does not sufficiently provide that reprein aentstion shall be according to oonttibul ~ tion. That is the case both as to the 111 Boards and the separate institutions. 3r Those who promise to contribute a 1 » total of £IOO for one year to a sepa--38 rate institution have a preponderance of 10 power iu the management of that inatilt; tniion. Thus, 1 know of one case in which those who offered to subscribe 10 £IOO would have had the election of a majority of the Trustees ; while the local |» bodies, who would have been compelled 8 to contribute over £2,000, could only 18 elect the minority. The irstitution and 10 its funds, therefore, would in that case I 8 be managed by persons who would not be ~ responsible to the ratepayers, who would d have to contribute four-fifths of the entire cost of maintenance. But I wish particularly to draw the attention of the y House to the difficulties which surronnd 7 the position of the local bodies in this 0 matter. lam sorry that I have not been able to get statistics showing the position 1 of all the different districts in the colony 8 on this subject. Ail that I have bean 0 able to do la to get the figures for the 9 North Canterbury district and compare t them with those of the Otago District—--1 and, as 1 have said, Ashburton belongs s to tho North Canterbury District. The 8 figures for tfaa North Canterbury District r are these : In boroughs the average rate > per head ts lid J, of which, to show the > inequality, Christchurch contributes Is i 6gd , Sydenham 7 one-sixteeat i cf a 1 penny., Kaiopoi 6 five-aimhs of a penny. r in counties the average is Is IHd. per i head, ranging from Amur!, 9s to ! Selwyn, Is Bgd„ and Akarpa, 1s Bgd., ' without mentioning Cheviot over 27s per head, the total average per head for North Canterbury, Boroughs - and counties included, la 6|-d per head. To this Nof.. - _ j district i the County of Ashburton has, unfort- , uuately, been attached. Before the Act j was passed wa endeavoured to do our ] beat for our sick and poor. We built , our own hospital, and mainta’ned it on ] the usual terms ot contributing, locally, j a pound for every pound of subsidy. , We used to contribute the cost of our , charitable aid too, until we found that in every other district that was being ( done by the Government, and then we f left off too. From past experience we \ know what charitable aid used to cost the E district; it was about £IOO a year. Now 0 we have to pay about £ISOO a year to j. the United District Board, being at n tho rate of 3s per head of the population. a I say tbaf; these figures show that some- 0 thing must be don,® to put matters cn a more satisfactory footing. It ip impossible but that country districts should feel ii J, exceedingly hard that they should have ai to contribute these large sums for the support of paupers in distant towns, more especially *hen their representation in the spending of those sums ’is not at

all ia proportion to their contribution. What consolation is it, for instance, to the people of Aflbbnrton to know that one or two of their number-trae colonists, living amoifg them—can go to Christchurch once a month to hslp to regulate these things. I would go so fsr as tp say that representation, so far as the country districts are

concerned, is almost a mockery. I gave in my adherence to the Bill last year in the hope that it would mean leaving this question to be dealt with as a question of local government, and I hoped that under it we should have been able to take the first steps in Christchurch towards trampling down this horrible demon of

pauperism that ia arising there But, to my

regret, 1 find that 1 and my colleagues are

powerless when we attend meetings of the Board. Whether it is that the spending of so many thousands of pounds there makes the people careless of the

evils of pauperism Ido not know ; but 1

uever come away from a meeting there without feeling hopeless and powerless

and having a feeling that I might just as well have stayed at home. 1 never lose an opportunity of drawing attention to what I call this most Inequitable system

o ; taxation with regard to s pporting the destitute in Ohtisic urch, and I will omparo the s*ate of thi.gs in the North Canterbury I istrict, to which Ashburton belongs, with the state of things in Dunedin. Of course, I know that in Dunedin things are on a different ta is, and that the I people there have for years recognized their | luuea with regard to the sick and needy, whereas in Christchurch th-y have b u en

Iteroatically throwing them on the hands the Government. Bit I should be r j to think that it Is entirely owing to >t fact that things in Christchurch have len into their present disgraceful sit ion Bat the figages show that nothing ought to be done and that mottling will have to be done very soon, la .North Canterbury District, including ihhurton, has this year to find £20,000 r charitable aid; while Otigo, whkh inidea Dunedin —a larger centre than iristcbnrch —has to find only £7,997. If ere is any truth in the supposition that rge centres diftw tha destitute towards em there should be more destitution in unedin than in Christchurch ; and we iow that there has been very great deresslon in Dunedin ; bat yet, see the lormous contrast. Can anyone say that tat is caused by there being greater rosperity iu Dunedin than in Christ* lurch) There must be soma serious saaon to cause this great difference In le figures. We can also view it in this ray. The amount of the charitable aid ate for this year in North Canterbury—acluding Ashburton—is £9.379 —that Is, learly half the £20,000. In Otago they nly require to raise £2,409 out of 27,997 by rates for that purpose. Yhy is this? Simply because the Unionists of Otago have always recognised heir duty to the poor, and they have now arge sums funded, the interest from which roes a great way towards the relief of the joor now in their midst. View it also ihis way : The charitable rate in North Canterbury is two-nineteenths of a penny in the po' nd, whl e in Otago it is only ihrei -eigh*y seconds of a penny; that is in North Canterbury it is nearly three times greater. The amount of this horrible charge would have been greatly lessened i y of proper inspection, by the local authorities—by those most direc'ly interested in keeping down them enorm us charges-and bringing them down to their natural level. I voted for the Act last year, aad doting the recess I h»vs been.doing my best to lessen the evil! and the only reason why I have done so httle is because the country representatives can do so little on the Boards. Local government at. 1 understand It is n>t obtained on this question by the people in the e shburion County. Ido not consider that Provincial Government was more local Government, because we bai to leave our homes and at end the Provincial Council during the whole session; but under present conditions local government is not obtained when members have to attend a body which has the spending of their money—to go one day a month to a distant city. You do not want to sen on these bodies men who take to pnhlio business bteiuse they have nothing else to do. Yea want to see on them men who live in the country and are constantly occupied with their f How-settlers in the every-day work of colonization. Men of leisure who do not know the trials and labors of colonization are most unsatisf.ctory members of the Board, and are not really rep-esentatives. This question of largo districts will have to be moat seriously considered by the House, for it is moat unsatisfactory at present—in the firs place bee i use of the unfairly .'arge c mtribuunns that are levied fur the country district ; and, secondly because those districts cannot be properly represented on the Boards. The whoie difficulty of unequal representation and contribution will have to be settled by the House, if not this year, then in the very e-rly future. It can only be settled by so defining districts that there can be really local government on this question. I trust, therefor®, that when the Bill goes into Committee it will be amended more particularly as to the taxation and the securing of a batter system of representation. I feel eertain that the principle involved in the Act of last year and the BUI we have now before us is the right and only one by which to arrive at a better state of things ; and it was with that view that 1 supported the Bill last year, and will support the present measure. In the hope that iu Committee we may get still further improvements in it.