CHARITABLE AID BILL MR GOLDIE'S VIEWS.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 384, 13 July 1889, Page 4

CHARITABLE AID BILL MR GOLDIE'S VIEWS.

Wkllixgton, July 10. Mb Goi.DiKhas favoured me with the second portion of his opinion regarding the new Charitable Aid Bill, this time dealing with it in its connection with out-door rolief. With his experience on our local bodie.3 his opinions are particularly valuable, and will bo of use now the Government are going to give local bodies an opportunity of judging of the Bill before it comes up for its second leading. Before oxamining into the position in which we should find ourselves financially in connection with the Refuges and outdoor reliof if this new Bill is brought into operation, let me correct an eiror into which I fell in connection with the Hospital. I took the average number of days the patients wore in the Hospital at Auckland, viz., 34 f, and credited the Government) with paying that sum, forgetting that in the Bill they only piopose to provide for thirty days. This reducos the sum considerably, so that under this Bill we should have vecoived last yenr C 367 10s, ns against the .€1,426 5s which wo did receive. And now with rcspoct to the Old Peoplo's Rofuge. Tho cost for maintenance here was last year £2,175, or at tho rate of 21s 7d per month, as against some 14s 7d paid for a liko purpose in Napior last year. Tho actual co«t taking into account the amount receivod from inmates and leaving out tho interest received from the Costloy bequest, which is liable to be reduced at any moment and which will be reduced by tho now building now being erected, was C 1,963 6a sd. The Government would pay of this sum £981 os sd. Under the new system of 6d per day for each inmate wo should have received C 1,401, or £420 more than under tho old system, but then we have no guarantee that the sum mentioned or any othor sum will ever be paid. We must not foreret that in ISBS, when the first Bill was introduced, which was a much more liberal one than this, the Government promised to give 250,000 acres of land to tho Charitable Aid Boards as an endowment. This has never boon given, and never will ; so in this case the section under which this promise of 6d per day is made is a very vague one. It says (vide section 27) "in case of public moneys being appropriated for the purpose of this Act by the Geneial Assembly." Now, it should be known that the only power that can put this upon the estimates is the Government itself. The House cannot. Thoy can reduce, but not add to the estimates, &o that whilbt under the Bill there is an apparent gain in this particular, there is no ceitainty of recehing that sum. And now, with respect to destitute children. Under the existing law the Government are required to provido for all children excepting those committed under sub section 1 of section 16 Industrial Schools Act, 1882, which leads as follows : — "Any child having no means of subsistence, or whose parent is in indigent circumstances and unable to support such child/ This was the provision in the Act of 1885. In the amended Act of 188G it was madt retrospective, and every session since then Bills have been brought in by the StoutVogel and Atkinson Ministries with the object of tacking on to the local bodies then instalment of children, vi/. , those com mitted under sub-section 3 of the Act oi 1833. This was fought out in the House last session. The aSlinistry on that occasion tried to mislead the House as to the true effect of the Bill, but when its intentions were made clear the Government saw theie was no prospect of cariyinjj it, and asked to adjourn its consideration. This was granted, but the Bill never came back. Under the present Bill, such childien when committed, or who have been committed before or after the coming intc operation of this Act, shall bo maintained at a cost of 3s 6d per week ly the local body, the Government now throwing upon local bodies the cost of maintaining all children committed to Homes excepting orphans and criminal childron. Now , what is the proportion of these two latter clas&es to tho committed ? Well, the latest returns we havo upon the subject arc those published in 1885, which show that during that year 340 childien -neic committed. Of these — 220 were destitute, 1Z weie vagrants, 30 living in disreputable places, 48 uncontrollable, and 29 guilty ol punishable offences, so that of the 340 com' mitted only 21 would havo been cired foi at the expense of Government, theie beinj> no recorded orphans amongst them. The cxacb additional burden to be tin own upon the local body in Auckland under this phase of the Act cannot be clearly ascertained ; but there can bo no doubt that it will be considerable. The only other matters affecting the financial aspect of the question atpie-.ent — I f-ay at present because one cannot tell what amount localities may have to pay te the State Refuges, those being governed by an Act not yet before the House, entitled the Destitute Persons Act, 1889, and until that appears this part musji be left out of the calculation — is that of outdooi relief. In Auckland and suburbs, this cost last year £3,216, of which sum the Government paid one-half. Under the new Bill they pay nothing. Summarising the whole, and accepting every one of the Hospital's cases as other than chronic, the difference between the assistance given by the Government under existing arrangements and those proposed would be, at the very lowest estimate, £2,500. This sum makes no provision for the increased burden of Industrial School children, nor for chronic cases in the Hospital, and accepts a sum of sixpence a day for each inmate of the Refuges, which is in no way guaranteed. Now, of this sum of £2,500 the Corporation of Auckland would subscribe, if the division is on the same lines as when I was a member of the Charitable Aid Board, a sum of £1,350, with every prospect of its being considerably more than this, whilst the gain by the Council would be simply the right to levy and expend all moneys, independent of tho°e who have to contribute at least onehalf the amount. If it was wrong for the Council to pay one-half in the past and only havo one third of the representation, it mu'-t sui'ely bo a greater wrong to take one half fiom others and give them no representation at all. It seems to me the Bill must bo opposed at every stage so that the tax- , payers shall not be further burdened as proposed.