INSURANCE FROM LIQUOR TRADE PROFITS.

Southland Times, Issue 22915, 13 June 1936, Page 12

INSURANCE FROM LIQUOR TRADE PROFITS.

To the Editor. Sir, —In view of the tragic happenings reported in your paper from time to time, and more especially during the past week, it seems the time- is long overdue when something of a practical nature should be done to prevent such occurrences in the future. While it may not be possible to prevent accidents through drink, it should be and is possible to reduce them greatly and make such recompense or compensation as we can when they do occur, though nothing in this world could ever really compensate for some of the losses. Take, for instance, the dreadful accident in Dunedin. So far as money goes it should be paid to those deprived of parents or other relatives. An insurance scheme provided for out of the profits of drink seems to be the obvious remedy. We already have life, fire and marine insurance. We have Workers’ Compensation, Bank Fidelity guarantees, and a host of other safeguards, so why not have one against loss through intoxication when such loss can be definitely traced to that cause. It would only require an amendment to the Licensing Act making it compulsory for all those trading in liquors to pay into a general fund the necessary quota on their turnover, which would be adjusted each year when the licence was renewed. This would avoid having to prove at what hotel or place the liquor was procured. No doubt there would be determined opposition by the Trade, but on the other hand many a proprietor would welcome something of the sort, as it must distres- him when a man makes a fool of himself at his house and then goes out and causes a tragedy. He would feel also that refusing drink to a man was not just sending him to the next hotel. A reform of this sort should have the support of all insurance companies as a very large percentage of their losses can be traced to intoxication. Motor insurance companies would not then have to carry out the present contemplated rise in their insurance rates. It speaks volumes for the powerful influence of the Trade that it can be the cause of so much loss and suffering and not be held responsible for it. In the final analysis the loss would not fall on the Trade, but would be passed on by a slight extra charge to the consumer. This is already done to provide the present protective and fighting fund. The biggest hurdle would be to find a Member of Parliament who would dare to move such an amendment, as it would probably cost him his seat. It is doubtful if any Government would be safe who put it in the Statute Book, although it would be good statesmanship to make every

proved loss a charge on that fund. There would still be 50 per cent, that could not be proved. While the said i insurance would primarily cover motor accidents caused by intoxication, it would ultimately cover all direct losses thereby — Yours, ’ jtc. W. H. WARD. Invercargill, June 10, 1936.