DOMINION LIFE OFFICE

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 292, 5 September 1931, Page 8

DOMINION LIFE OFFICE

Registration in New Zealand PRIVATE BILL PASSED

The Dominion Life Assurance-Office of New Zealand, Limited, Bill, was passed by the. Legislative Council yesterday afternoon. Moving the. third reading in the absence of tM Sir William Hall-Jones, the Hon. A. F. Hawke said he understood the reason the company was not regie-. ■ tered in New Zealand was that it was a, limited liability, company. If it had been an unlimited company the New Zealand - Registrar would, have registered it That was why the company had to go to Sydney to start its business. He understood ; the company had been carrying on buri- \ ness for three and a half years. Outside ' of being registered in New South Wales, it was practically a New Zealand company. All the directors were New Zealanders. . .. ■ The Rt Hon. Sir Francis Bell said he must oppose the Bill for the same reason as he had opposed it when it had been before the council previously. The; New Zealand law prohibited a company with limited liability from being registered for life insurance, and as long as that law existed the Council should not ratify anything that would enable deliberate evasion to take place.. .. . The Hon. Sir Thomas Sidey, AttorneyGeneral, said he had hoped to be able to ■■ introduce an Amending Companies Bill this session, but it would not be ready., until next year. The English law subject to certain restrictions permitted insurance oempanies with limited liability to be re- ■ gistered. The Treasury had recommended that the New Zealand law should be amended in. this direction, and a BUI was under preparation. It had- been . made clear, however, that a mere amendment of the Companies Act would not be sufficient to meet the case of this particular company, and unless the Bill before the Council was passed the company in order to be registered in New Zealand would have to be wound up and the cancellation of all its existing contracts would be involved. The Hon. G. J. Garland supported the Bill- ~ x v The Hon. J. A. Hanan said that when the Bill was before a committee no evidence was tendered against it. The Registrar of Companies had reported that he could see no good and sufficient reason why the Bill should not be passed into law. Mr. Hanan said he knew many of the shareholders; all of them were men of the highest standing in the community. , , The Hon. W. Earnshaw, in opposing the Bill, said that the law should be amended so that no foreign company would do business in New Zealand unless it accepted the principle of unlimited Ila- , 1 The Hon. C. J. Carrington said that if the company vnshed to operate in New Zealand it should comply with New- Zealand conditions. • . Mr. Hawke, replying, to the debate, ~ said that the arguments advanced against the Bill were not very sound. New Zea? land allowed other foreign limited companies to operate here. The company in question was in. a very sound financial nos’tioh. .. * The Bill was read a third, time by 16 votes to 6, and passed. \

The Christchurch Tramway District Amendment Bill was defeated on its second reading in the Legislative Council yesterday by 14 votes to 6. The Council has adjourned until September 17.