EARTHQUAKE LOSSES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21845, 6 July 1934, Page 13

EARTHQUAKE LOSSES

SPECIAL FUND PROPOSED FIRE INSURANCE LEVY OBJECT OF PRIVATE BILL [BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION] WELLINGTON, Thursday The introduction of the Earthquake Protection Bill was moved in the House of Representatives to-day by Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour —Napier). Mr. B: irnard said the object of the bill was to provide a fund to meet, at least in part, property losses which might arise from an earthquake. The Government some time ago introduced a bill providing for the payment of Is 6d per cent on fire insurances, but that provision was dropped, largely because of the opposition of Reform members. He was making the dropped clauses largely the basis of his bill. Practically the whole of New Zealand, except perhaps the North Auckland peninsula, was subect to earthquakes. Therefore all parts of the Dominion should bear a share in building up the fund.

He estimated that £200,000 would be provided each year, and that would be the beginning of a fund which would be readily available to meet the whole or part of earthquake losses affecting property which the Dominion might have to face in future. He thought the present year was particularly opportune to start the fund, as fire premiums had been reduced by 25 per cent. An alternative would be to require insurance companies to carry earthquake risk in the ordinary way of insurance business, but that was a matter for consideration by the Government rather than by the ordinary member. The bill was read a first time. SAFETY ON ROADS REDUCING ACCIDENT RISK EFFORTS OF DEPARTMENT [BY TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION] WELLINGTON, Thursday A question whether the Government would consider tightening the motor regulations on the lines of the English legislation was asked by the Hon. D. Buddo (Canterbury) in the Legislative Council to-day. The Leader, the Hon. R. Masters, replied that the Government was considering the question of amending the New Zealand legislation in certain directions. A decision would be reached in the near future. The Transport Department was actively engaged in drafting measures designed to reduce the number of accidents. SPEAKERS IN DEBATE TRANSPORT COMPETITION RAILWAYS BOARD CRITICISED [BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION] WELLINGTON. Thursday The Address-in-Replv debate was continued in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr! A. Stuart (Government —Rangitikei) criticised the Railways Board and the Transport Board and said they were trying to drive traffic from the roads to tlie railways. If they did not manage to drive traffic off the roads they were certainly going to drive the Government off the Treasury benches by the pinpricking tactics they were using at present. He criticised the Railways Board for competing with coastal shipping. Mr. W. P. Endean (Government — Parnell) also criticised the competition to which coastal shipping; was subjected. He said young New Zealanders should be given an opportunity for following the sea. After the Prime Minister, Mr. Forbes, had spoken, Mr. A. J. Stallworthv (Independent—Eden) criticised Mr. Forbes for his attack on the Opposition. He said it was not the responsibility of the Labour Party to produce a policy for New Zealand. Tt was the responsibility of the Prime Minister. Not one word of constructive character had come from the Leader of the Government. Mr. Forbes had relied largely on the Hon. E. A. Ransom's speech of the previous night. It was time he became a leader instead of a leaner. Mr. J. Connolly (Government —MidCanterbury) urged the Government to do something to ease the burden of electricity charges on rural power boards, which paid twice what the cities paid and had to rate farm lands to pay their interest. He protested against the Railway Department increasing the rents of railway workers. He urged that the wheat industry should be protected.' He suggested that the Wheat Marketing Board should purchase all wheat instead of only milling wheat. He also contended that there should be some elasticity about the 611b. standard and said that if wheat were under 611b. the grower received Is 9d less a bushel. The debate was adjourned.