Reasons For Legislation On Golden Kiwi Profits

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29891, 3 August 1962, Page 10

Reasons For Legislation On Golden Kiwi Profits

(From Mur Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, August 2. Criticism of Golden Kiwi lottery profits distribution had been so severe that the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) had asked him to have legislation drafted for the revision of the allocation system, said the Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Gotz) in the House of Representatives today. After Opposition members had referred to the distribution of the lottery funds, when the list of allocations by the Minister was discussed, Mr Gotz replied that no member had criticised any grant he had made.

“Unfortunately, there was some discussion in a Cabinet committee yesterday appearing in the morning newspapers. It was not altogether correct. When the legislation comes before the House I am sure that all members will agree with my proposal,” said Mr Gotz. A motion by Mr W. W. Freer (Opposition, Mount Albert) that the statement of grants be referred back to the Government lapsed when the House rose for the dinner adjournment before a vote had been taken. Discussion on the method of the allotments was interrupted by Government protests that it was out of order as the statement contained only a list of names. The Speaker (Mr Algie) ruled the discussion was in order and that Mr Freer could refer to other material that would support his case. Mr Freer had referred -to newspaper reports on a Cabinet committee meeting on distribution. Opening the discussion, Mr Freer said that while he gave Mr Gotz full credit for establishing the lottery, that was as far as he could go. A peculiar series of situations had arisen since the lottery started. Allocations Queried “People were concerned as to how the distribution would be made,” said Mr Freer. “I would draw attention to another question I asked in the House. I asked whether the allocation would be made as in the past, or by a committee of members of the Government. The Minister replied the distribution would be made on the advice of his department. “In this morning’s paper we read that the whole system is likely to change. The committee might include the Prime Minister. Is this the sort of committee we want? People will feel the Prime Minister has more important things to attend to.

“The problem the Minister faces stems largely from the size of the amount for distribution,” said Mr Freer. “I would hope that a new look will be taken at the organisations and types of organisations to be assisted. “Grants going to young people should not reach the stage where young people will not go out to help themselves,” he said. Mr Holyoake asked whether Mr Freer criticised any of the organisations given grants. Mr Freer: I have no criticism of any organisation which has already received a grant. Scope of Grants “I am glad Mr Freer has not criticised any grants made or any organisations which have received grants,” said Mr Gotz. “I am sure every one came within the definition of charitable, philanthropic, cultural or sporting activities.” Opposition voice: Why alter the system? “The objects will remain the same in the future as in the past,” said Mr Gotz. “I think every member of the House agrees that the success of the lottery has been remarkable. “There have, of necessity, been a number of explorations into the methods of distribution. And it was inevitable that there might have been conflicting statements on the method. “I don’t think one member of this House would criticise one of the grants,” he said. Mr N. E. Kirk (Opposition. Lyttelton): They would criticise some that have not been made. A committee of departmeiital officers had worked with him in considering applications. said Mr Gotz. “There will have been disappointment in certain cases. I have had hundreds of suggestions for distribution. I have also had many applications that had no hope of succeeding.”