COLONIAL MUTUAL LIFE OFFICE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1559, 1 October 1912, Page 5

COLONIAL MUTUAL LIFE OFFICE.

, STATEMENT BY THE RESIDENT SECRETARY. Referring to tho petition, with five sigi natures, presented to tho Victorian Legis- , lative Assembly asking for an investi- . gation of the affairs of the above society, it is desirable that consideration should 1 bo given to tho circumstances which > prompted tho petition. [ Wero tho petitioners actuated by a desire to protect the interests of tho .policyholders, or did motives of quite a personal nature prompt their action? A reference to the petition shows it is stated, that the petitioners believe that the holders of one-tenth of the shares desired such an inquiry. • If this belief were genuine, why did none of the shareholders sign the petition? For the obvious reason that there aro no shareholders now in the ordinary sense., ' ' Tho impression apparently intended to bo conveyed to the public was that these 1 five petitioners, actuated, by motives of a very high character, wero acting on behalf of a large number of people who . were vitally interested in tho society. The cablegrams which have received such wide publication throughout the Dominion did not mention that four out of the fivo petitioners were ex-em-ployees of the society! This is a fact whicli throws qniio a new light upon the situation, and opens up quite a-number of possibilities. Were the wlioje four, or any of them, under the impression that, they had not , 'been fairly treated during the "time they - wero in the _ society's service, or at the time of their leaving tho service? If they are men with personal grievances against tho society, their attitudo is east il.v understood. Reference' has also been made in tho cablegrams to a Bill introduced in tho . Victorian Legislative Assembly by the society. Tho reason for this Bill was explained, very clearly by the'chairman at tho society's annual meeting in May last, and . the following is a condensed statement of his remark.?:— , "This society was projected towards the end of 1873, and a prospectus was issued that the society would be, and bo conducted' strictly, as a Mutual Lifo Assurance: Society. "Owing, however, to the Life Assurnnco Companies' Act of 1873 pot .then being in existence, it was necessnrv lo register tho society under' the provisions of the then Companies' Act as a company limited by shares. This -was accordingly done under the advice, of eminent conveyancing and it is accordingly stated 111 the company's existing memorandum of association that the society is a company limited by shares, anil on this ground it has been recently suggested that the society is not a purely mutual institution. "It is a purely mutual institution, and whatever may have been the original mode of registration in 1873, tho tso'ciotv was founded asa Mutual Society, and has always been conducted as a strictly and purely Mutual Society. . shareholders who wero brought into existence over 30 years ago in order to register the company, as I have mentioned above, were allotted foundation policies in lieu of their shares, and have never been regarded as shareholders in tiie ordinary sen*?. "The possible etfect of the method of registration so adopted in 1873 upon csrtain of the articles of association controlling its working has been carefully ■ considered by leading counsel; mid it was decided in view of the magnitude of the society s interests and operations, a short Act of Parliament should be applied for to settle these doubtful prints, onco and tor nil. Speaking on the Bill in the Legislative Assembly the Premier stated: "That tho Government had fully considered the society s position, and they are sure it had taken the right courso in approachin" Parliament." J'ho Government, therefore, realised that the society in seeking to correct a technical flaw in its constitution'was taking an honourable course, and one which was undoubtedly in the interests of all the members, and the Government were evidently prepared to facilitate tho passage of the Bill. Was it merely a coincidence that, just at the time this Bill was under the con: siderniion of- Parliament, the petition against the society was launched? Why was it held back until then? Was it because the petitioners realised they could never hope to secure a more favourable opportunity of seeking tc embarrass tho society and possibly delaying, if not killing, the Bill introduced to safeguard the policy-holders.. Were they afraid the only hope they had of their petition being considered was at a time when an important Bill affecting the society's interests was l)eforo Parliament? So far as the specific charges aro concerned the directors of the Society state they have a full and complete reply, and tliey invite the fullest investigation. The result of that investigation will show that there is no foundation for the wild charges which have been made. From the facts which are now given the public will doubtless recognise that (he position is really very different from Hint sol forth in tlio cablc.l news, and they may naturally be surprised Unit Mich importance has been given to a petition in connection with which a little inquiry would have shown I hat it emanated from fivo persons, four of whom aro ox-em-ployees of the society, and whoso motives should, therefore, have been carefully investigated. ' There never was a tims in the history of the society when criticism in regard to its financial position was less warranted. During the past few years both the rate of bonus and tlie volume of new business have been more than trebled. Large sums have been added annually to the accumulated life assurance fund, which now amounts to over .£3,300.000. The expenses of conducting the business have been considerably reduced, and the mortality experienced has been far more favourable than was expected. In fact, during the whole 38 years the society lias been transacting business it lias never been in a more prosperous or flourishing-condition. P. 1). LI'SLIK. Resident Secretary for N.Z.