Delay In Golden Kiwi Grants Criticised

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30264, 17 October 1963, Page 18

Delay In Golden Kiwi Grants Criticised

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, October 16. Why had there been delays in the handling of applications for grants from the Golden Kiwi lottery funds which took from April to October, asked Mr N. E. Kirk (Opp., Lyttelton) in the House of Representatives tonight.

Why had a double amputee on whose behalf he had applied for a small grant, of perhaps £2O, for tools and materials to make slippers, have to wait from April to October 15 to be told that grants were not made to individuals? “That was known in April,” said Mr Kirk.

The House was discussing the Internal Affaire Department estimates and had been engaged in elaborate exercises to discuss the policy of grants and odds to circumvent standing orders of the House restricting discussion on policy. After Opposition speakers had injected their points into the discussion the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) took their lead and inquired: "Would the Minister of Internal Affairs (Sir Leon Gotz) say if he found any reports of officials of their research under the Labour Government which resulted in lottery profits being increased five-fold? “How many extra officers Were necessary to secure the lottery, bringing in five times as much profit as it did under the Labour Government?” he asked.

Mr P. Blanchfield (Opp., Westland) had inquired whether any officers had examined overseas lotteries which paid out in prizes a higher percentage of revenue. He waa about to make some observations about a Wellington Cup meeting and cables about tickets from Australia when the Acting-Chairman of committees (Mr W. J. Scott) restrained him on the ground of relevance. Mr Kirk said that in April he had represented the case of the amputee to the Minister of Internal Affairs. It was referred to the department. The man needed the tools and material to supplement the social security payments which were consumed by paying board. On May 27 he was told the matter was referred to a distribution committee, and on August 7 he wrote for advice on whart had happened. On September 6 he was told inquiries were being made, as this was a separate sort of case. By October 15, the applicant was told there would be-no grant

The secretary of the committee said he had some sympathy with the matter, and referred It to the Aged People’s Welfare Council in Christchurch. “Where are we getting to?” asked Mr Kirk.

The Taylor’s Mistake Surf Club had made an application for a grant in April, said Mr Kirk. An undated letter thia month Informed the club that the application had been declined “I suppose we can expect a golden stream from the lottery funds before November 30,” he said. Mr W W Freer (Opp.. Mt. Albert) earlier said the Golden Kiwi lottery started off with a fanfare ot trumpets. but it had been so badly handled many people regarded it as a dismal failure. There was a growing apprehension over several aspects. The public was concerned at the way tha Minister had “messed round” with the allocation of lottery profits At first the Minister had claimed he was competent to distribute profits. Then, instead of appointing just one committee. be appointed several, leading to confusion and delnv. His statement last week that overseas lotteries were illegal was strange comins from a Minister who bad said the Golden Kiw' was so successful thst a “Golden Moa” might be held from time to time.

He was solitting straws when he said the Govera-

meat opposed the sale of overseas lottery tickets yet collected tax on tickets ordered in New Zealand from Victoria. Surely this was inconsistent with National’s oftheard cry of open competition. How far was he going to push his policy of preventing other lotteries from competing with the Golden Kiwi? Why could the Golden Kiwi not be conducted so as to earn overseas funds? Was the Minister considering ways of improving chances of winning lottery prizes? What proposals did he have for improving the allocation of profits? After lengthy discussion on a point of order, Mr Scott ruled general debate on lotteries out of order. Odds Criticised Mr A. J. Faulkner (Opp., RoskiM) asked whether there was sufficient staff for the administration of the lottery for it to develop in accordance with the wishes of the nation. Were there any people studying the lottery in relation to overseas lotteries

coming into New Zealand? The Golden Kiwi odds against winning a prize were 124 to one. Other lotteries offered odds of 80 to one. 64 to one and some as low as 50 to one. Mr S. A Whitehead (Opp., Nelson) asked whether the expenses of the department in administering the lottery were repaid from the lottery.

I Mr M. A. Connelly (Opp., Riccarton) asked whether proviaion had been made for grants to organisations which >did social and welfare work, but which were unwilling to accept lottery profits Sir Leon Gotz said the people on the allocation committees had done a great job. Most of the current applications for grants had been dealt with or would be at the lend of this month. It seemed to him by some of the suggestions made by Mr Freer and Mr Faulkner that they were doing their best to "damn the whole show.” "Odds Are Better” In overseas lotteries, he said, the commission was paid by ticket purchasers, and If it were taken into account that the price for Golden Kiwi tickets under that system might be fis fid, it would be found that the odds fa the Golden Kiwi were better. No grants were made to individuals except to enable a person to buy a car if his work depended on it. Sir Leon Gotz said he was

concerned that there were some organisations which would be entitled to -funds, but were loath to accept them. “We have made quite a number of investigations to see how we can help them.” The Prime Minister was pushing him along and “we’re having discussions on it,” Sir Leon Gotz said.