Fire Insurance Bill.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 79, 30 September 1896, Page 2

Fire Insurance Bill.

We have been asked to publish the subjoined letter by Mr B. Hallenstein, a well-known financial authority :— TO THE EDITOS. Sib, — As the Government Fire Insurance Bill may po3sibly be farther considered this session, I venture to address to yoa the following remarks on the subject. I regret that pressure has been brought to boar 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 dissatisfiad with tbe tariff rates which were first introduced, and : lam free to confess that I myself was i amongst Bhat number ; bat nothing was further from my mind than to join those who induced the Govern- ' ment to introduce 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 comi bination of the companies doing business in New ZeAland not been speed ily amended, new companies would have been started and broken up the tariff. We all know, especially in Dunedin, that fire rates previously ; ruling there were ridiculously low aad not paying ; they were about as mnch too low as they were too high afterwards, but competition would soon have righted that. I feel sure tliat the good serae of the members of the Honse will not allow the Government Fire Insurance Bill to become la.w. The clause to make it compulsory that all buildingsi must be insured with the Government would 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 who 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 in force it, especially with the parties referred to who ire likely to hi strong: supporters of any Government that may be in power, The argument that the Government runs the Life Insurance successfully, and that therefore btate fire insurance must also be a success is fallacious, as there is no analogy between the two. For instance, if the Government ins are a life that should not be insured, the result would only affect the department in that one instance ; whereas if tliey 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 issaed enly one-half of the property, would it be prudent to expose ourselves to sneh a risk when we know that even the largest and wealthiest companies, who spread their _ insurances in nearly every coantry in the world, take only a very limited risk on any one block ,- yet their resources have frequently been strained and i» some j cases cempanies ruined- The prospect of State firo insaranee 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 witli the late tariff rates regret that they moved in the direction of State fire insaranee. For the good of New Zealand I hope, therefore, that State fire insurance will never be introduced here-, as soener or later it will cause ruin to the colony. Though lam a director of a local insaranee company, I hold very few shares j bnt my interest ■ for the good of the colony, with wiiich, as every one knows, I am very largely identified, outweighs every other consideration. I am, etc., B. HiVti-KssTgaah. Wellington, September 21.