CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Star, Issue 19436, 20 December 1926, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE

PROTECTING HOAIMJSERS. TO TUB EDITOR. Sir,—As regards the report appearinf in your issue of the 14th inst., under th< above heading, in connection with th( compulsory third-party insurance scheme, proposed and outlined by Mi J. Preston, of the Waikouaiti County Council, it is surely quite probable that sooner or later some such scheme embodying compulsory third-party cover for motorists will become the law of this country. Exactly what form such a scheme will take it is, of course, impossible to foretell, but the above-mentioned proposal of Mr J, Preston is certainly of very considerable interest. However, it is extremely doubtful, in my humble opinion, whether the Minister of Internal Affairs will bo likely to view Mr Preston’s scheme with any great degree of enthusiasm, in its present form at all events, for the following reasons;— (1) On account of the interference with the vested interests of the insurance companies already operating in this country and making very heavy annual contributions m taxation to Government funds; (2) on account of the difficulty the Government would experience in regard to the settlement of third-party claims, which, under such a scheme as Mr J. Preston’s, would probably rise to a much higher proportionate average than at present pertains in New Zealand, for the following reasons -(1) Because very largo numbers of more or _ less irresponsible motorists (as pointed out, and therefore admitted, by Air Preston, himself) not at present insured at all would bo compelled to take out third-party cover, and some of these more or less unfinancial motorists would certainly be very bad “moral hazard” risks, to put it mildly. (2) Because it is fairly certain that any motorist carrying a third-party policy backed by the Government and meeting with an accident would be likely to become mulched in a claim for the heaviest possible damages, on the wellknown principle that railways and other government departments are often considered as “ lair game.” But, if the insurance_ companies could be employed as settling agents, each company retaining its own clients’ business, just as at present held, and being paid a commission for the us© of its local office equipment and for the services of its skilled officers, as settling agents, then I think Mr Preston’s proposition would rest upon a much better business footing, and also be very much more likely to receive the favorable consideration of the Minister of Internal Affairs. The above suggestions arc, however, merely given for the possible benefit of motorists. To my way of thinking Air Prestoms scheme has other possibilities before it (provided, of course, it could once bo licked into practical workable shape), and has not the palpable weakness of the _S.I.M.U. Mutual_ Insurance Association, of being registered with unlimited liability. This is surely a very real and ever-present danger, as one has only to bear in mind the present position of some of the best known South Island Farmers’ Co-operative Associations and freezing works to realise. Anyone predicting such a possibility of danger a few years ago would have been held up to ridicule as a pedantic fool, but who could be induced to purchase shares in some of those companies to-day? Yet the shareholders of these associations and companies have the protection of limited liability, whereas ths members of the S.I.M.U. Mutual Insurance Association have not that protection. There is also the ever-present possibility of the coming into being of some such scheme of compulsory third party insurance as outlined by Mr Preston, and in that case it has, I think (as already mentioned) certain other possibilities. With the coming into being of compulsory third party cover (with the co-operation and good-will of the insurance companies at present operating in this country) ft i« certainly just within the bounds of possibility that more advantageous terms and conditions as regards fire and # accident risks may also be made available to motorists, for wo are undoubtedly living in a progressive ago. It can also easily be seen that the happening of such an event might at any time leave the S.I.M.U. Mutual Insurance Association high and dry.—l am, etc., Edward Bingham. December 18. CORPORATION METHODS, TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—-A glaring example of the inefficient manner in which certain corporation servants carry out their work may bo seen in Rawhiti street at present. A gang of men has been at work for some time past putting in s concrete channel and kerbing, and seemingly a good job was being done. Judge the surprise of residents when, a few days later the same gang set to work to break up about 30ft of the completed channel, and build a new one about 2ft nearer the pathway. As wellpaid inspectors make Irequent motor trips, at the ratepayers’ expense, of course, and presumably overlooked the work, the mistake cannot be attributed to the workmen, who wore acting under instructions. Will tho city engineer kindly tell your readers if the costly mistake lias been reported to him, and if so, whether steps nave been taken to remove an obviously incompetent subordinate? Is it any wonder that tho engineer’s estimates of the cost of certain work arc often exceeded when mistakes like tho one I have relerred to are made?—l am, etc., December 20. Ratepayer.

[The citv engineer, being shown the above, replied: “The letter shows that the writer or the instigator has some personal end to serve. Tile tone of the letter betokens personal animus. It “Ratepayer” or his informant will have the courago to communicate under liis own name with me he will get all the satisfaction to which he is entitled. The suggestion that the city engineer’s estimates are often exceeded is amply untrue. As to the particular job, it refers to a slight alteration in the lino of kerb and channel, and the cost of the alteration was trivial.”—Ed. E.S.]