The Government Insurance Department.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 7074, 21 February 1893, Page 2

The Government Insurance Department.

( Insurance , Mining , and Finance Journal.') Time after time for years back the Insurance Review , of London, has set itself to attack and misrepresent the Government Life Insurance department of this colony. Contrasted with the British Government Life Insurance establishment which was emasculated by vested interests at its birth, and has been starved and neglected ever since, the New Zealand Government Life Insurance Office takes rank as a giant, especially considering its comparative youth and its limitation to the small population of New Zealand. In a little more than twenty years with a population which, at the etaablishmont of the institution, numbered only 155 000 persons of European descent over 15 ye»rj of age, and even now only shows about 380,000 I above that age, the department has gathered together an accumulated fund amounting to no lees than two millions sterling; and after having psid fully £BOO,OOO in claims and for bonuses and otherwise, it showed at last valuation, after making ample reserves for all pos-ible contingencies, a cash surplus amounting to £239,000 of which there was allocated among the polioyholde-a the sum of £200,000, representing from £450,000 to £500,000 of reversionary additions to the then existing policies. The department has frequently been made a stalking horse of by the malice of quondam friends, and by disappointed politicians for the purpose of levelling attacks on the Government of the day. Distortion of facts and invention of “ the other things ” have characterised the hostility of such detractors, and the London Review is not ashamed to follow similar tactics. In its business and success (ho department has far exceeded the progress made by many English offices of more than twice its years. Yet, while fully aware of this and of the excellent position it occupies compared with many of its compeers, the Review persistently misstates facts. It makes much of the ratio of expenses, although not only is that ratio declining, but it is the lowest but one of all the Australasian offices. I 1 sneers at the reference to the Htate security which attaches to the department, and. while admitting its value as a safeguard to the policyholders, at the same time asserts that such security is a burden on the colony in general! As a matter of fact, the State security is no burden on the colony whatever, but a decided benefit. Valuation after valuation has shown substantial surpluses, profit? largely in excess of the total existing liabilities incurred under the current contracts. Instead of being a burden on the taxpayers of the colony, the department is an advantage to them. It pays in taxes, postages, and telegrams a very substantial amount every year ; and while the feeling of possessing State security must, in the very nature of things, be a satisfactory one to assured persons the existonce of such guarantee has not cost, and we believe never will cost, the colony at large a single penny. The Review condemns the department for doing as other institutions of the kind do—that is, for employing canvassing agents to obtain business. It is “undignified," “ignoble " ; but then “ antipodean Governments ” (says the oracle) “do not consider dignity a necessary portion of their functions ” Everyone who knows anything of life in-ur-anoe knows well that no office can nowaday? successfully compete, more especially in the colonies if it were to cease canvassing Very rarely indeed do good lives come acres the count,er spontaneously. Even the “ dignified ” offices of old stand in England with scarcely an ex-option, are now fol lowing the universal sy-tera of employ ing canvassing agents Had the British Post Office insurance scheme of 40 years ago been energetically prosecuted by canvassing, it would not have been the moribund and meaningless thing it is to-day. No office can afford to do without canvassing. If it did it would soon become an extinct crater. That is whothe London Review and other journals who are in direct opposition to any Government system of int usance would like to see happening ti the Now Zealand Insurance department. They fear that the growing socialism of the Home country may adopt the system, and hence thi scolding of the Review and some of its con genera at Ihe New Zealand Government Life Insurance department, whose success there can be no denying. Indeed bad any private offic shown results equal to the record of the Government Life Office wo doubt whether the Review would have found language sufficiently eulogistic to do justice to the oc casion. But its animus to Government insurance is too plain. It is some seven or eight years since the Review began its attacks, and curiously enough, “ nobody seems a penny the worse.” Nevertheless, the continual attacks, however inspired, and above all, the persistent misrepresentations, are wholly unworthy of decent journalism. This is especially the case when such conduct is displayed by a paper arrogating to itself the position of a leading critic in the insurance world, whore honest interpretation and fair statements of facts are absolute essentials of just and truthful criticism.