WAR DAMAGE FUNDS

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVI, Issue 91, 14 October 1943, Page 4

WAR DAMAGE FUNDS

Sir, —Your correspondent "Insure" speaks wisely, and it is gratifying" to see his timely message. Quite apart from the impracticability of effecting a refund of war damage premiums, which, /even without the attendant difficulties mentioned by your correspondent, would be an impossible task for insurance companies with their present depleted staffs, the policy holders cannot possibly justify any claim for return of premiums. In return for those premiums the public has had financial protection against what was a very real danger during the Pacific crisis. When the householder insures his dwelling he pays a similar premium for similar financial protection, but in the fortunate event of his not suffering a loss by fire he is not so unreasonable as to expect a refund of the premium. Why then should the public expect a refund of war damage premiums? The people have undoubtedly received value for their money, and, provided any surplus funds are used wisely, there should be no complaint. The provision in the Act by which surplus funds are to be set aside for relief of earthquake distress is a wise one, and the public should be advised to leave well alone. The individual who cries out for a refund of his war damage premiums may some day be thankful for the benefits of that relief if New Zealand is so unfortunate as to again suffer a major earthquake disaster. In spite of the above remarks, however, the time has undoubtedly come for a review of the War Damage scheme. Our military leaders have expressed the view that the possibility of an invasion of this country is now remote, and while the public cannot reasonably expect a refund of pre- ! miums paid, they have a right to demand a review of the necessity for fur- i ther payments. The surplus funds now existing should, with accruing interest, be sufficient to meet the needs of earthquake relief, and in conformity with the accepted insurance practice of reducing premiums as the risk diminishes, the time has now come for at least a reduction in the war damage premium rate. I trust you will continue to advocate a complete review of the necessity for the continuance of the scheme.—l am, etc., PROGRESS. Sir, —May I through your columns protest against having to pay war risk insurance now that the menace of invasion, etc., is a thing of the past— at least that is what our Government leads us to believe is the case. If this is correct then the Act should be repealed right now. There is no reason why the accumulated funds should not be held to be used in cases of disaster in the future.—l am, etc., 'REPEAL.