DESTITUTE PERSONS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 894, 13 August 1910, Page 7

DESTITUTE PERSONS.

■ interesting speech by ;;-;;;C:x;;. v . : dr.;findlay... v /: : : . e;.fV : .F?NAfICIAL REBATE./: :V . tfON; R. MACKENZIE ATTACKS THE r ; OPPOSITION. ;'".■■■.:' Li." the'Legislative Council the whole of'.yesterday afternoon was given over • to''the 'debate' oii the second reading .; of- the Destitute Persons Amendment : Bill, whiqli' was agreed; to. : Tho Bill was ! theh referred to the Statutes Revision' .Committee. Members of -tlio. Lower Chamber, again had tho Financial Statement boforo them, . Among ■ tho speakors; was ,tho Hon. R. M'Konssio, j who dealt'chiefly with the Government's water-power proposals. At the 9.30 p.m. adjournment,' before, the Hon. A. T. Ngata had complpoted bis remarks, it was docided to adjourn until Tuesday night, so' that .those members of Parliament ::.who;.nMght._dosire to makevthe trip' ■■; coiild visit Auckland in , connection with ". 'the' winter show there. In the"course of the debate there were further, references', t<) 'Mr.' .'Hine's charges of "Tamnianyisni,".;.. which arc reported ..;';■' , ■;■"■:_'■■■,■.' ; V'Sthe^goungil.':■ ;■; DESTITUTE PERSONS AMEND* i : MENT BILL. SECOND READING- AGREED TO. ' When the' : Council resumed ■■ at'2.3o p.m." yesterday, . ; .",- ' ; . . The; Hon. "J. B. CALLAN (Otago) oontinued the debate' on the. Destitute . Persons' Amendment- Bill.'. Referring : . to;'Sectioh.;4 defining' "near relative," '.' ttio speajifcr pointed • out that stepfather '',and stepmother ■. mentioned ,In the old . Act had 'been -left/out- of - rtlie present::Blll so- that .'-'near relative, , ' although? extended in one way, was redi|ced' jn another.-way.., . Th« wajqrity. of^pepple.'would,' he believed,: prefer to contribute towards the.naaintenanco of ' a;,.brdthor or a. sister's child'.than, seo its'(maintenance • thrown, on oh'arity. or .. a-pu.blic institution. In the case of: destitute children ■ the Bill 'endeavoured to:'pufc tho.responsibility on the.person primarily responsible. -. Hβ suggested that"a' near,;relative ..maintaining -u child of a destitute : person should be able to proceed against -the parent for ai-efurid at anytime that the- parent vwas in.;.a position to pay, no .matter what time.intervened. Ho'believed that for any, parent ..who neglected to maintain bis no punishment was too severe. '■ ■ ....... '..-'•■ .■■::';;. '. -■

, The Eon. Jas. (Auckland) did not think it was right that the. Government .should put tho cost of the indigent person -.',. on the .-wrong shoulders. ..It was right, enough, to-got alii that could be'got oufT.'of tho parent, but. he. did ,not- believe they, should go beyond. the ./parents to ■, such relatives as\Uncles of aunts. He would "like to issue, a v word or warning, that we were hiving-a..little too. much, legislation .oil., some i of; these, ■ points.;■■■■■. Wherever one. Wriied,'them was. sbme : legal. point to bbs_lnjet.;, .'^.liistead,. pf._introducing. iiiew legislation.; : he. thought we might',en-, daivourtp , ,"perfect, the ;administration of,ithe Acts; at. present mi the Statute Bdbk;-;•■"":;:•■:;•. ■? " ■■■■...... " / ..

;The'-Hon;!C.M.:LUKE (Wellington). said..th'e..s'uggestion of reciprocity with the.' Australian Commonwealth was an excellent'one... Under: the present: law it,-' was often .difficult. to. get payment, even when an order 'ofYthe.Court was made, ■ but -'this 7 Bill went'' far. enough ta,'meet .this class of people. .Mr. Lnko speculated .as . to, Vwhothcr the - ','neai relative" provisions would'.hot act as a deterrent to thosei contemplating marriage.. ' . ■ .".-"..- ■The Hon. J ; T; PAUL; (Otago) thought the Bill was a vety honest and laudable; .attempt, .to- grapple '• with- a difficult subject. He did not think that many... of tho, suppositious casos raisedwould ;'hav.e to be metr.- Nor, could he Bee that, the Act would deter.any- young man from; marrying.. .The whole objeot make those.pay .who' were.;.able, te pay in certain cases. , -.Theßon.; J. E.' JENKINSON urged thai;- '.where a.. -maintenance',-, order wa'sVmade, against any person it should take, precedence over. other debts, in- : stead; of coniing ; after them-' as proposed.'. Some, other means than mere imprisonment should -be adopted to make'..a .-man recognise his responsibilities/and liabilities, for-imprisonment .not help ,a ; deserted ;. wife . or children, in, anyi way.. • ~...

;';;dr, fihdUy in reply. The 1 Hon. Dγ, FINDLAY, 'in reply, 'dealt'largely'with .-what he termed the microscopic examination of the •Bμ which had been made by tho Hon. Mr. Saninel. , .Some details of the Bill must- be altered no doubt, but one thing was certain, and' that was that they must make it harder for the wife deserter. .Wife desertion was a growing evil, in this country, and the law as'_ it stood. at present- allowed these wife deserters to. go to' Australia, and thoexpense and difficulty made it.almost;,hopeless to-get them back. He had.; not got exact- figures, but did ■not.-think.he would-be far wrong in isaying. that the cost of maintenance Jin-industrial schools added to what was ipaid for charitable aid .would bo over ,£IOO,OOO a year. If to this they added '.the largo number of destitute. persona lin lunatic asylums, ■ only a comparatively small number; of whom were supjported by; their relatives, the rou"h icstimate was something like £200.000 ,a .year..as the tax on the people of iJNew Zealand for' maintenance of des(tituter. persons. , .The fundamental I principle on which, all considerations [Should proceed was that every near (•relative who was able to,afford a helpling hand should be made to givo it .(Hear, hear.) Under the new Bill in I few: cases, as few as possible, would there: be any burden thrown-on either an uncle, aunt, or sister. If provision for the,extension.of the meaning of. the- words "near! relative" was passed it would help to relieve the public of-a burden of several- thousand pounds. When tho Hon. Mr. Samuel had been speaking on the second reading, said Dr. Findiay, he had made a'statement to the- effect' that the wealthy were just as likely to support their dependents as the poor .were. Ho (the; speaker).had since mado some inquiries in this direction, and he was in a position to say that many, wealthy people in Now Zealand at th<S present time wore allowing near relatives to be a burden on the State. Ho had ■ received illustrations' that day which were little short of disgraceful. Yet whilst these near relatives had plenty of money,' there, was no law to niak'o thorn pay. Referring to a telegram recently published, referring to what had been done by the Auckland Charitable Aid .Board, and throwing out a suggestion that the Government should deal with deserting husbands, Dr. Findlay remarked that it was true that putting a man into prison did not enable him to earn a living for his wife and children, but it was a deterrent, aild the class of men who would leave their wives and children was tho class of who was afraid of the

criminal law. Under the new Bill theso offenders would bo treated very much the sanio as if they had broken into ,i house . ' .

The.Hon. Mr. Jenkinson: It only punishes the man. it does not help his wife and children.

Dr. Findlay said a law which was a deterrent would have its effect in tho long run. It was proposed to inako tho.arm of tho law long in these cases, and with the now. Bill Am, the Statute Book this class of offence:would be reduced considerably. Tho second reading of the Bill was agreed to on tho voices, and tho Bill was referred to the Statutes' Revision Committee. . .' ...