“REFORM” IN ANOTHER FIX

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8349, 8 February 1913, Page 4

“REFORM” IN ANOTHER FIX

The other day the High Commissioner contributed a long article to the London “Times” detailing the excellent results that have followed tho expenditure of public borrowings in this country. We pointed out that this very truthful presentation of facts, made specially on tho ere of the Hon. James Allen’s application to British investors for a largo’ loan, placed the self-styled Reformers in an awkward situation. Either they had to repudiate the statement of the High Commissioner or admit that all their fulminations of a generation about the “ reckless and wasteful,”, financial policy of the Liberals was so much unadulterated political hypocrisy. We shall not pursue this subject further just now than to casually observe that there has been no Hint of challenge, or contradiction, or qualification concerning the High Commissioner’s statement officially set before the investing x'ublic of the world. “ Reform ” thus admits by silence that its career in Opposition was the reverse of creditable—tnat its “ criticism ” so far as the Liberals’ financial administration is concerned, was dishonest. Let us leave it at that for the time being. But there is another little matter that ought to be mentioned. As a great number of business will know, there is in circulation a letter issued not many weeks ago from tho State Fire Insurance Office. We gather from this document that this enterprise has been in operation eight years. It has made a profit of £20,000, established a reserve of £33,000, has policies current totalling £13,000,000, and an annual premium income of £53,000. But that is not all. Tho Office—which, we are officially informed, “stands for cheap rates, the cheapest rates possible, now and for all time”—has not cost tho Government a single penny piece, has, conducted its business at a lower cost than any private insurance company, and has actually saved the people over £1,250,000 in reductions in premiums. This is not a bad record, and certainly reflects great credit upon the management. As tho circular letter _ from which we quote has the authority of “Reform” Alinisterial sanction and endorsement, wo may perhaps be permitted to congratulate some of the hidebound Tories of days gone by upon their material, though tardy, conversion to reason. For the excellent results of State fire insurance are totally opposed to all the predictions (we do not like to say hopes) of the Conservatives. The authorising Act, passed by the late Air’ Seddon in 1903, was stubbornly resisted by tho party now on tho box-seat —■ the party now responsible for advertising the magnificent benefits it has yielded. Less than ten years ago the very idea of the State entering into competition with private enterprise in the fire insurance world was anathema to Mr Alassey, to Mr Allen, to nearly every friend and supporter of what is labelled in these days “Reform.” The proposal was then regarded as an additional indication of the mad career New Zealand had embarked upon in the direction of Socialism. “Tho Seven Devils of Socialism” was a popular phrase used to broadly describe the Liberalism of the day. In the second reading debate in 1903 Air Massey warned the House that insurance was a far less profitable business than was gemerally supposed. The new departure was not worth what it was likely to cost the country. Mr Allen said there were already two insurance departments run by the State, and it was a fact that they did not pay, as well as private companies. The only argument in favour of the Bill was that it would decrease premiums, and how could it be argued that that would be brought about when they had the experience to judge by of the _ two departments of Government insurance already in existence? Later, in committee on the Bill, Air Allen said there would be no reduction in premiums. It was not worth the paper it was written on so far as reducing premiums was concerned. The colonv should pause before incurring the risks involved. There was no necessity for the undertaking. Also, with that ‘fine lofty regard for purity which wo all admire in the “Reformers.” that fine public spirit which seeks only the common weal and scorns to impute bad motives, Air Allen solemnly assured the House that “the Bill had been brought down for the_ benefit of interested individuals.” Sir William Russell (whose illuminating views on the “advent of Reform” were given forth to a waiting world the other day) declared that as legislation was promissed regarding trusts and combines the first combine .to be attacked should be

be Government insurance scheme. Tin--Bill was a great danger. Mr Dutliio was convinced that the solvency of insurance companies was best guaranteed bv the present system. _ The country was asked to “plunge” into this business for the sake of creating another department and giving the Government further powers of patronage. And Mr Buchanan —wo beg pardon. Sir Walter —affirmed that “the business men” of flic community were quite able to otect themselves without “Government interference.” (How like the titled ■ member for Wairarapa!) Finally, onJr one member of the Conservative party voted for the second reading. To nis credit lot us say that the exception was Mr Berries. All the other members oi the present Government who were in Parliament at the time voted against the Dill—again save one. On this side the exception was Mr Herdman—who did not vote at all! And to-day a circvilar is issued under the authority of the self-styled Reform Government, with the Hon. W. F. Massey at its head, drawing the attention of the country to the splendid results attending the State-insurance “experiment,” and inviting all insurers, Tory and otherwise, to hurry up and avail themselves of its advantages. Liberal conviction appears to he coming home to the Tory mind gradually.