FIRE INSURANCE BILL.

Hastings Standard, Issue 129, 24 September 1896, Page 4

FIRE INSURANCE BILL.

[To the Editor.]

Sir, —As the Government Fire Insurance Bill may possibly be further considered this session, I venture to address to you the following remarks on the subject. I regret that pressure has been brought to bear upon the Government which has induced them to bring forward a State Fire Insurance Bill. I am aware that a great number of people were dissatisfied with the tariff rates which were first introduced, and I am free to confess that I myself was amongst that number; but nothing was further from my mind than to join those who induced the Government to iutroduce a Bill of State Fire Insurance. lam in a position to say that had the new tariff rates which were at first introduced by the combination of the companies doing business in New Zealand not been speedily amended, new companies would have been started and broken up the tarift. We all know, especially in Dunedin, that fire rates previously ruling there were ridiculously low and not paying ; they were about as much too low as they were too high afterwards, but competition would soon have righted that. I feel sure that the good sense of the members of the House will not allow the Government Fire Insurance Bill to become law. The clause to make it compulsory that all buildings must be insured wth the Government will sooner or later lead to most disastrous results to the taxpayers and the colony generally. Everyone who has any knowledge of insurance business knows that in every community there are - certain parties that cannot get insured by any company, and though the Government may have a clause in the Bill to allow them to refuse any risk, it would be most difficult to enforce it, especially with the parties referred to who are likely to be strong supporters of any Government that may be in power. The argument that the Government runs the life insurance successfully, and that therefore State fire insurance must also be a success is fallacious, as there is no analogy between the two. For instance, if the Government insure a life that should not be insured, the result would only affect the department in that one instance ; whereas if they insure the premises of an unscrupulous man the consequence may be that a whole town is liable to be laid in ashes, of which there are many instances in Europe and America. Such a catastrophe would be almost ruinous to the country and its inhabitants. Even if the Government insured only one-half of the property, would it be prudent to expose ourselves to such a risk when we know that even the largest and wealthiest companies, who spread their insurances in nearly every country in the world, take only a very limited risk on any one block; yet their resources have frequently been strained and in some cases companies ruined. The prospect of State fire insurance fills me with very grave apprehension. I sincerely hope there is enough common-sense in the House to prevent it being carried. I believe that even those naturally incensed with the late tariff rates regret that they moved in the direction of State fire insurance. For the good of New Zealand I hope, therefore, that State fire insurance will never be introduced here, as sooner or later it will cause ruin to the Colony. Though I am a director of a local insurance company, I hold very few shares; but my interest for the good of the Colony, with which, as every one knows, I am very largely identified, outweighs every other consideration. —I am &c., B. HALLENSTEIN. Wellington, September 22.