I.—B.

30

[g. aickin.

168. Your objection to State fire insurance is really that you object to the State interfering in any business of the sort ?—That is it. I assure you that is not only my own feeling, but the feeling among the commercial community. The chief objection is to the State borrowing for the purpose. 169. Mr. Barclay raised the question of the companies fixing the rates of premium without consulting the insurers at all. What is your opinion upon it? Do you think the insurers ought to be consulted ?—lt would be of no use to consult the insurers, because they are not in a position to judge. The premiums are fixed, as I understand, entirely in proportion to the risks in the various districts. As Mr. Kirker pointed out this morning, the various districts are classified, and the re.tes are based upon the classes of risks in the different districts. 170. Do you think that ordinary business principles should be followed in insurance— i.e., that a company should state the rate at which they think they can take up insurance business, and if the people think it too high they can refuse it ? That is the ordinary rule in business. A man who has a commodity to sell says what he wants for it ?—That is so in ordinary business where there is no combination, no tariff. But it is the same with the Government. There are Government tariffs, and we have no option but to pay them. For instance, there is the railway tariff. We have to accept the tariffs in the Government services. They are based unon wellknown rules and principles, I take it. The public very soon find out whether the insurance companies are charging unduly high premiums, and that has been the cause, no doubt, as the article which I read stated, of this agitation for State fire insurance. It is a mistaken idea that the State can regulate everything and give relief upon every possible subject. The better plan would be for some foreign companies to come here, with their immense capital, and enter the field in competition with the companies at present doing business in New Zealand. It is their business ; let them come in. But it is certainly not the duty of the State to undertake such a risky thing as fire insurance. 171. However high the rate of premium, you think it does not come within the functions of the State to enter into competition to regulate the rate ? —That is another question. 172. It raises the whole question of State competition ?—The State might interfere if there was an unjust monopoly. They might step in there, but Ido not say that they themselves should go into competition. 173. How could they interfere otherwise ? —They could regulate the matter by law. 174. Eegulate the premiums to be charged?—No ; but they could take steps to check monopoly where it could be shown that it was an unjust monopoly. You heard what Mr. Kirker said. 175. He was speaking as an insurance expert. lam trying to get your opinion as an ordinary commercial man. You say that you object to the State interfering at all in fire-insurance business ? —Yes, to their taking it up themselves. 176. Then, supposing the fire-insurance companies were to raise their rates abnormally high, would your objection to the State interfering still continue ?—I would put all monopolies on the same basis. I think the State would be justified in stepping in to prevent any monopoly that meant unduly high prices. Some time ago there was talk of the price of meat being too high, and also the prices of other commodities. Of course, it has to be shown that the prices are unduly high ; and that is a very difficult question to answer. 177. I will put it in this way : You admit that for fire-insurance purposes there must be a recognised premium charged? —Certainly. 178. And that the companies must have a reinsurance rate ?—Certainly. 179. Well, directly you admit that you do not admit the formation of a combine or monopoly ? —Do you mean that the combined companies have a monopoly in consequence ? 180. Yes, an organization to keep the rate at a stated amount, and therefore a monopoly or a combine—whether the rate was high or low would not matter ?—Yes. 181. Well, supposing the insurance companies were to raise their premiums to what we might consider an unduly high point, would your objection to the State entering the field of fire insurance still continue?— Certainly. Most decidedly, under the circumstances, should the State become a competitor with its own citizens. You must go upon the same principle as regards business. The State might as well enter upon your profession or mine in the same way. The same principle applies. They have no right to do so, on account of the enormous power of the State. They could use their credit and their money to compete with private individuals. The whole thing is unjust. 182. In the event of the case being as I suggested, do you think the Government should then subsidise a foreign company to come in to break up the monopoly? —I cannot say what steps should be taken, but the Government might then interfere for the benefit of the community. I take it that it is the duty of the Government to benefit the people in the State ; and if they find that in any business the people are being harassed and treated unjustly it becomes a matter for the State to interfere, not by going into competition themselves in that business, but by rectifying the unjustice, whatever it may be. 183. Mr. T. Mackenzie.] You said that it must be a case of unfair imposition of rates before the Government should interfere ?—Yes. 184. If unfair rates were imposed, would you consider a measure of this sort justifiable ?—No ; I said the exact opposite. I said that nothing would justify the State entering into competition with the individual; but they would be justified in taking steps to break up monopolies—in what way I do not say. 185. There can be only two ways of dealing with the matter: either the Government must themselves compete, or some other companies must come in and do business here. I understood from your evidence that any company starting operations must merge in with the existing companies to secure reinsurance?—No, Ido not think I said that. I said that I do not think it will