MR J. B. WHYTE, M.H.R., ON THE HOSPITAL AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS BILL.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 163, 31 July 1886, Page 2

MR J. B. WHYTE, M.H.R., ON THE HOSPITAL AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS BILL.

We herewith reprint from Hansard the speech of our member in the House on 7lh inst., on the occasion of the moving the second reading of the Hospital and Charitable Institution Bill by Sir R. Stout. In the debate which followed Mr Whyte said :—: — The honorable gcntlemnn who has just sat down (Mr Walker) gave us some startling figures. He showed us that in one part of his distiict the rate was as much as 9s per head, whilst in another portion it was as low as 6^d. Now, Sir, I happen to represent a portion of the colony which in one county contributes as mush as 30s per head on the census of 18S1, and, according to the present population, as much as 13s 4d per head, allowing that the population has more than doubled ; whereas in other parts of that hospital district the contribution does not exceed Is 2d a head- Speaking, however, generally to the question, I do not, as a rule, approve of applying the local test to important measures, but I think it is the only means of testing a Bill of this sort in order to find out how it applies to the wants of the colony as a whole ; thewafore I need not apologize for giving our local experiences in illustration of my arguments. The Waikato County Council naturally took a great deal of interest in this matter, and, after careful consideration, prepared a circular, which they all over the colony, and to which they got 'answers — some entirely approving, others partially approving, and others merely acknowledging the receipt of the circular. The

main points in this circular were, first, that, owing-' the size of the districts as now arranged, this Act would inevitably tend to foster pauperism, owing 1 to the want of control ovor the distribution of charitable aid, and through want of knowledge of the individual cases. It also drew attention to the fact that, although our contribution wag levied on the basis of rateable "value, the representation, on the other I wind, was based on population. In the oviginal Bill as brought down by tho Government the contribution was on tho basis of population ; but that was afterwards altered, I believe, on tho argument that wealth should boar the burden of hospitals and charitable aid. Now, I admit there is a good deal of force in that argument, and I agree that wealth should bear the burden ; but it should be wealth of all descriptions — not one particular sort df wealth. As, however, there is a motion on the Paper which proposes to put it on the basis of the property-tax, I will not enter on the merits of that just now ; but I must say that 1 see great difficulties in the way of that basis being made workable, and, as far as I have applied the local test, I think i L , will bo found that if the districts coupled together were kindred in the nature of the occu- ' patiotis of their populations and the conditions under which they live, the present basis would be found to work almost as well as any other. It seems to me that pot haps a mixed basis might be ariivcd at in the following manner, although I cannot give any very logical reason for it — I think, possibly, it might be found to operate well, although logically there is not very much to be said in its favour: Say that hospitals were contributed to on the basis of population, and that funds for charitable aid wore levied on the basis of rateable value. I give this simply as a suggestion, and as a rough-and-ready way of arriving at a method of levying a mixed rate. Now, I quite agree with what the Premier has said in moving the second reading — that the towns should not be left entirely to their own resources. I think that would not bo fair. I think that a reasonable amount of country around them should be included in the districts in which hospitals are situated. I have said, however, that I thought the conditions of the districts should be in some respects alike ; and if they were I do not think any great inequality would ensue, and I think also that the contributions would be pretty equally distributed, considering all things. Then, as regards the matter of representation, that is at present exceedingly unequal, being as it is on the , basis of population, while the contributions are on the value of propei ty. Then, also, the matter of accessibility from one part of the district to another bhould be considered, and also the comparative woallh of each district, in one shape or another. This now brings me to the particular case of hardship under which part of my electorate is suffering. The County of Pinko is at present part of the Thames Hospital District, although the former .is almost entirely an agricultural district, whereas the latter is almost entirely a mining distiict. Then, again, Piako is connected with Auckland both by rail aud by water, and does nearly all its business there; whereas it is connected with the Thames only by a very rough road, thirty-five miles long at its shorstest point, or by a river at a much greater distance. It therefore is evident that their interests are but very slightly allied. Then, the contribution demanded from Piako for the year ending in March, 1887, is as high as £1433, although the population in 1881 was only one- twelfth of the whole, and is now not more than one-sixth ; and yet Piako contributes two-thirds of the whole amount contii buted, and that amount is paid by only 435 ratepayeys. This is a very extreme disproportion, but it is not owing -to the difference in wealth of the two di&tvicts. It is owing to the fact that nearly all the Piako property, it being an agricultural district, is rateable, whereas very little of the other is rateable, it being a mining district, mining property neing exempt by law from rates. lam aware there is a proposal before the House to make mining property rateable ; but that has not passed yet, and I do not think, judging by the present mind of the goldfields members, that there is much chance o? its passing. Ido not say that it is right that it should pass, but, as bearing on this Bill, it shows that the greater part of the wealth of this district, as now constituted, does not contribute to this purpose. Then, in the matter of representation, the Piako CoUnty has only got one member on the District Board and one on the United Board. Notwithstanding their contribution of two-thirds of the amount, they have only one member out of four on the District Board, and one on the United Board out of eleven. I may be told that will be amended. Probably it will, but I do not think that alone will meet tho case at all, because of the expense and inconvenience of carrying the representatives a long distance. The question of accessibility comes in here also much more forcibly as regards patients for the hospitals and recipients of charitable aid. Another reason for this separation which I hope tho House 'will grant is, that at piesent there is no doubt the Piako District could very well maintain quite as efficient an institution at Te Aroha as those at present at tlie Thames, for a very much less sum than they contribute to the general fund with tho Government subsidy added. They could be maintained for a much less sum. Then, agaiir, it must be remembered that Te Aroha is in the county, and is connected with nearly every part of it by two railways and the river $ therefore | patients would not have to travel so far *■ and over such a rough road as they mubt

traverse in going to the Thames. Moreover, Te Aroha is alrealy established as a thermal springs sanatorium ; and, a hospital in conjunctiou with this couhl be maintained very cheaply. A miningcommunity are as able .to contribute towards charitable aid as an agricultural community, if not more so, and they use these institutions as much as, if not more than, an agricultural community. But there is another reason which I wish to give, and perhaps it is the most cooent of all, and that is, that the Thames District, if the Piako were cut off, would still be able to maintain her institutions perfectly well. That is boine out by the fact that for many years past they had done so, when the patients were much more numerous, with contributions from the Government not nearly as great as the contribution which is now asked for. 1 wish also to point out that, even after the County of Piako is cut off, there will be still 12,500 people in the district ; and I believe their wealth is very considerable : in fact, I am told that in no other part of the colony are the deposits in the savings banks so great as in the Thames District. 'This 1 consider a sufficient indication of their ability to bear their qjvn burdens. The main point of my contention, therefore, is that, even on the argument that wealth should bear the burden, by coupling together a mining and an agricultural district different kinds of wealth contribute most unequally, hi fact, I have shown that a great deal of wealth escapes taxation altogether, and that a community quite as wealthy may only contribute Is 2d per head. 1 think, therefore, that if kindred districts were coupled together [ the Act would be found to work very fairly. As the Premier has said, I do not think it is good that the towns ' should be cut off and made to carry the ; whule burden. No doubt the country people send a good many to their hospitals and charitable-aid institutions, and the towns should therefore not bo left to their own resources. If, hcwever, as in this case, they were allowed a radius of thirty-five miles around the centre, surely they would then be able to manage their own affairs. I hope, therefore, that when the Bill gets Committee we shall be able to re-arrauge boundaries.