NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT INSURANCE.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1402, 28 June 1881, Page 3

NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT INSURANCE.

TO THE EDITOK. Sra, — I was thorouglj amused on reading the absurd explanation and excuse given by Mr J. K. McDonald in reply to "Inquirer* re bonuses. He states" under ordinary circumstances the bonuses would have been published before now." What, may I kindly enquire, do we care whether they publish them or not? They pub' luJied that they made £12,000 profit during the first five years, which should have been, according to agreement with insurers, divided as bonuses ; but the publishing is all we have yet received, and present indications almost point a similar way for the second five. Secondly, he states — " But in order to satisfy the public an independent valuation has been made in London, which will reach the colony during the month of August." How nice ! When did the 2>t<bltc ask that an independent valuation should be made? I, as an insurer, was under the impression that the Government were capable of carrying on the department when they undertook it, but the above statement puts quite another face on it, Mr McDonald would give ns to understand, on the authority of the Commissioner, that the public would feel better satisfied at having an independent valuation, so as te still farther prove the superiority of our office over every other one. But look at the other side. Mr Andrews, M.H.R., stated in Parliament " that he had some little knowledge of the working of this department through the evidence which was taken befoie the Public Petitions Committee. That evidence showed that the whole thing was in a state of confusion up to the present time. He was not prepared to say whether £800 were sufficient or insufficient for the salary of the head of the department, but he could not see any consistency in the Government allowing an actuary at £600 a year to be kept on, who had ahown such incompeteney that it had been necessary to appoint a Commissioner over him at £800 a year. This Actuary, receiving £600 a year, had led the department into such difficulty that it had been necessary to pay another Actuary to get the books out of the confusion iv which they were." May there not be a faint cbanco that on this ground the independent valuation was sought ? Thirdly he states, "and as soon as the report is latified by the House of Representatives, the bonuses will be declared." Now what about the bonuses if the House does not ratify the report, that is granting that the independent valuation, not yet to hand, will show a surplus to be reported on ? this statement bears absurdity on the face of it. They send home for an independent valuation, and before they get it, they give you the result. As to the feeling with which it may be viewed by the House, I shall quote an extract from Mr Murray's speech in Parliament. " They must oonsider they were now asked foy this year's salaries, £20,000, and that the total payments which the department made for policies, &o , amounted to £35,000 last year. They had a liability of £3,750,000, and the funds on hand amounted to £361,000. They were thus spending for officialism half as much as they were paying for the legitimate business of the department, ami he was afraid the colony would some time have to make up an enormous defio.it, Evidence showed that the department hud been very much mismanaged. He did not think the actuary made a favorable appearance before that committee, and if that office was a specimen of those who managed it, he had no confidence in the department." I hope from personal feelinps I entertain fqr Mr McDonald, that he \a not glassed in that flatpflovy, but his lottov would lead me to think th at he almost knew as much about it, as the actuary above alluded to. — I am, &c. Another Victim.