THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1931. REBUILDING NAPIER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20793, 9 February 1931, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1931. REBUILDING NAPIER.

Thought about the. rebuilding of Napier—and of Hastings and other places suffering damage by the earthquake in varying degree—should be characterised by heed of the fact that decisions of great importance and wide bearing are to be made. An emergency of unusual extent and difficulty has arisen.- It cannot be adequately met without very careful consideration of all aspects. Some of them call for patience in investigation. In the distribution of relief funds, of course, there is a need for haste in supplying personal wants suddenly thrust on so many. Speed is of the essence of that duty. But other demands of this critical occasion ofrght not to be handled precipitately. In some directions there has appeared a haste not warranted by all the circumstances. Assuming that reconstructive work is to be done at Napier, for example, the work of demolition with that in view seems to be proceeding without regard to its destruction of valuable evidence in relation to building construction. At this distance it is possible to err: what is being done may be no more than the minimum required to ensure public safety. But, as far as is known, nothing has been done in the way of systematic study of the ruins before the working parties raze to the ground what is left of the shattered buildings. There may he cause to regret later that the opportunity of skilled observation was thrown away. In what the Government has decided about payments to policy holders in the State Fire Office, however, there is a clear instance of precipitate action. On this matter there was no necessity to make a pronouncement at once. Apparently, although the Prime Minister describes the decision as one made by the Government, it is really one made by the officers of the department in their zeal for the institution they manage. It is not easy to think that Cabinet has given the matter any consideration, so grave and palpable are the objections to this particular method of dealing with the situation.

The business of the State Fire Office is of concern to more than the policy holders. The reserves of the institution should be drawn upon in this emergency, but not in this particular way. The calamity should be treated by the Government as a national one, so far as the operations of the State Fire Office are concerned, and whatever aid it can render by devotion of its reserves ought to be shared by all the losers, not by the selected few who hold State fire insurance policies. On the showing of their policies, which exclude expressly, as do the similar policies issued by private companies, all damage occasioned by fire associated with earthquake, they have no more right than policy holders in those companies to compensation in this way. What is intended by the Government is admittedly an ex gratia payment, and its making would be tantamount to giving these policy holders a preferential claim to compensation to which they have not even a semblance of legal title, at the expense of other victims of the disaster. • This would be utterly inequitable. There is a better way of defiling with the resources of the State Fire Office in this national emergency, a way already suggested by the Hkrald as assisting a desirably general effort to give aid in reconstruction. But before passing to a detailed consideration of that it is to be noted that the announcement made by Mr. Forbes includes an impracticable condition. "Payments will not in any case exceed the amount of the fire damage and will not extend in any circumstances to purely earthquake damage," he has said. But how is this distinction to be made? In the very nature of the disaster it has become impossible to assess what proportion of the destruction has been due to earthquake and what proportion to fire. The explicit wording of earthquake policies groups the ruinous effects of earthquake, fire and all other damage ocpasioned by an earthquake, without any attempt to assess any of the effects separately. Experience proves the reasonableness of this. What is intended in connection with the State Fire Office payments is conditioned quite unreasonably. It would be far better to add the contribution of the State Fire Office to this national need to a fund to be administered for the benefit of all suffering loss. If £500,000 of the reserves were contributed by the State Office to a general reconstruction fund, there would be possible an allocation in proportion to the losses sustained by all the sufferers, without violating the national prin-

ciple that should, be honoured and without establishing any prejudicial precedent with respect to the relation of fire policies to earthquake risks. No doubt the insurance companies. contemplate making contributions to the general relief fund, and would bo willing to have their contributions transferred to such a reconstruction fund. It is possible, also, that a surplus from the relief fund now being raised might be transferred to this reconstruction fund, as well as what is available from unemployment levies. The whole matter might well be reconsidered by a conference of representatives of insurance companies, State Fire officers and members of Cabinet, with a view to discussion of such measures of general assistance. As to the administration of such a reconstruction fund, it might well be decided that the labour cost of rebuilding be subsidised to the extent of at least 50 per cent. This would encourage prompt rebuilding and create much-needed' work in the coming winter. This subsidising should extend only to the value of reinstatement; owners themselves should bear the cost of extenions of buildings and any elaboration of premises, although reinstatement ought not to mean simple re-erection on former plans. Discretion would have to be exercised by competent authorities both as to this latter qualification and the enterprises to be subsidised. Details would require consideration in every instance by administrators, but some such general scheme would go far toward an equitable and serviceable handling of the emergency.