STATE FIRE INSURANCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18673, 30 September 1922, Page 7

STATE FIRE INSURANCE.

According to the members of the Opposition, everything which the Government has done during the present session in the direction of benefiting the people is devised for' the purpose of influencing the electors' at the polls two months hence. Consequently Mr Sidey declares that he has no doubt that the reason why the State Fire Insurance Bill, providing for a distribution of bonuses to insurers, has been brought down in its present form is that the general election is not far away. Unfortunately for Mr Sidey’s contention, the original Act provided for a distribution of the profits, and Mr Seddon placed great stress on the importance of this provision when introducing the original Bill. “It is here,” said Mr Seddon, “that the State Fire Insurance Department would have a great advantage over private companies, because we apply the mutual principle. ~ . . Although the premiums might be fixed at the same rates as private companies, the fact of getting half the profits would mean that there would be a reduction to the extent of that amount in the premiums that were payable.” As the Government is now simply giving effect to the principle enunciated by the sponsor of the scheme in 1903, Mr Sidey’s suggestion that it is electioneering is utterly destroyed. In the past the proportion of profits due to policyholders was too small to admit of an economic distribution of the funds. Mr Coates, who is now the Minister in charge of the department, pointed out that the cost of computation would have absorbed the bonuses. The Government has decided, however, that the time has now arrived for a distribution. The contention that the State Office had joined the “insurance ring,” whatever that may imply, does not appear to, be more securely founded. From the extract from Mr Seddon’s speech which we have quoted, it will he gathered that he contemplated that the premiums charged by the State Fire Insurance Department would be uniform with those charged by the competing companies, but it was his hope that the promise of the distribution of bonuses would encourage pro-perty-owners to give a fair share of their business to the State Office. By proposing the distribution of a bonus the Government is loyally carrying out the intentions of the framers of the Act. The accusation that it is electioneering, if made by the Leader of the Opposition, might have been regarded as an attempt at humour. Mr Sidey, however, is a serious politician.