£60,000 Too Much For Most To Win—M.P.s

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30530, 27 August 1964, Page 3

£60,000 Too Much For Most To Win —M.P.s

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, August 26. Parliament today accepted the recommendation of its Petitions Committee that no action should be taken on two petitions calling for a halt to the Mammoth Golden Kiwi lottery and for an open debate in the House on the principles involved. The petitions came from the Bishop of Auckland (the Rt. Rev. E. A. Gowing) and Mr D. M. Jamieson, of Napier and 14,402 others, including members of the Auckland Synod.

As the committee’s report noted, the petitions were presented too late to be considered before the first Mammoth was held.

For more than two hours, members debated the committee s recommendation and most of those who spoke came out against the Mammoth.

The chairman of the committee, Mr J. H. George (Govt., Otago Central) said authority to run a lottery of any size was granted by the 1962 amendment to the Gaming Act and this had been debated then. .

Other members of the committee who spoke in favour of the recommendation were Mr R. Macdonald (Opp., Grey Lynn) and Mr A. D. Dick (Govt.. Waitaki). Opposition members, Mr C. J. Moyle (Manukau), Mr R. L. Bailey (Heretaungaj and Mr J. R. Harrison (Govt., Hawke’s Bay) spoke against the lottery and its effects.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nordmeyer) said he believed Parliament should have been consulted about the extension of the Golden Kiwi lottery to a £60,000 prize. The Deputy-Prime Minister (Mr Marshall) said he would say in public what he said in private previously: that gambling facilities were more than adequate in New Zealand and their effect could be insidious. Mr W. B. Tennent (Govt.. Manawatu) held that the £60,000 prize was too big.

Several members of the Opposition called for an inquiry into the effects of the lottery. These included Mr N. V. Douglas (Auckland Central), Mr Bailey, and Mr J. G. Edwards (Napier). The Government members of the committee are: Mr George, Mr Hi V. Donald (Wairarapa), Mr Dick, Mr Harrison, Mr Rae (Minister of Housing) and Mr D. S. Thomson (Stratford). Opposition members are: Mr Bailey, Mr Macdonald, Mr Moyle and Mr! B P. Macdonell (Dunedin! Central). Discussed In 1962 Mr George on the request for a debate on the institution of the Mammoth lottery, said most of the committee claimed this was given in 1962 when the amendment to the Gaming Act was discussed. The amendment had been fully debated and it had given permission to the Minister of Internal Affairs to conduct lotteries of any size and number. It had been done with the full knowledge of the people of New Zealand. On the claim that an air of respectability had been given to the lottery. Mr George reported that the committee held that it was better to give an air of respectability to something that was going on anyway, and it was better to have some form of control. “We heard no evidence on serious effects on the social, moral or economic lives of people.” The 1946 gaming inquiry supported the committee's view on this, he said. The petitioners had asked for a commission to be set up to investigate the effects of gambling, but the committee thought the time was not opportune. two or three years should be allowed to pass to see if the Mammoth lottery had its alleged effect. “Housie,” Raffles Mr Macdonald said the evidence before the committee was voluminous and the sincerity of the petitioners was not doubted. “I am not a gambler myself.” said Mr Macdonald, “hut 1 like my little 5s investments in the Golden Kiwi. 1 think it is a working man's gamble.” The board of control for the lottery was a good one and he' did not think there was anything detrimental to the country in the lottery with this board in charge. There was a condemnation of gambling in much of the' evidence and, if he thought this condemnation were widespread, he might agree with the petitioners, said Mr Macdonald. But be had asked whether the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church had been consulted and he did ask about members of the Roman Catholic Church running “housie-housie” and raffles to help their homes and welfare organisations. Hopes For Win It had been mentioned that someone had had the misfortune to win £30,000 in a lottery. He would not regard it aS a misfortune. “1 don't think it would be detrimental to my way of living if 1 won £30,000, or the widow’s mite of £5. I am still hoping.” said Mr Macdonald. “Is it more detrimental than the T.A.B. or an occasional glass of beer?” Another organisation shook little boxes around hotel bars Should that be stopped? Many would remember when drinking was done away with in Ohinemuri and every house was a sly-grog shop said Mr Macdonald. The Minister of Education

I (Mr Kinsella): Ours wasn’t. Mr Macdonald: I don’t know where you are going to get money from if you do away with the Golden Kiwi. Hardly any member is not on the doorstep of the Minister of Internal Affairs for grants. “Danger To Nation” “I don’t claim my view is a minority view,” said Mr Marshall. “It is that the facilities for gambling are more than adequate at present. 1 believe that the more opportunities for gambling there are, the more gambling there will be.” For the individual, his actions were his own concern, but Parliament had to consider the consequences for the nation, he said. The economic disadvantages of gambling could become apparent steadily and insidiously and it was good to have people who were vigilant in these matters.

“I have a great deal of sympathy for their point of view and I want to say that in this' House,” said Mr Marshall. Mr W. Nash (Opp., Hutt) also said credit was due to the petitioners. In other countries, where there was poverty, one of the great industries was the selling of lot tery tickets. This was linked with the fact that there was no work to do and the hope of winning prizes was encouraged by state action. “I cannot see any benefit to the economy in these lotteries. I can see much against them.” He would play “housiehousie” or buy tickets in small raffles, for it made no difference to him whether he won or lost, said Mr Nash. But a £60,000 prize was different, and every extension of gambling facilities increased acquisitiveness. Irish Sweep Mr Tennent held that gambling facilities in New Zealand were sufficient. In Ireland, where sweepstakes were run to support hospitals, it had been found that private. subscriptions were almost lost. This could happen in New Zealand. The Golden Kiwi had been set up to save money from going to Australia; Now it was found that the reduction in money going into Australian lotteries had been reduced by only 15 per cent. “When 1 saw the first £60,000 lottery advertised, 1 thought this was hardly right. It was giving an air of respectability to something that was not good for this country.”

When tickets had been sold out in two days it was shown that other people had a different view, but this lent weight to his argument. “I think the prizes should be reduced considerably.” Mr Moyle said he was a dissenting member of the committee. “The evidence was of such an arresting nature that notice should be taken.”

The petitioners said that the Mammoth Golden Kiwi was the point at which they felt they should make a pro test. There were differences among the churches on gambling in general. But they were unanimous on the question of the Mammoth. “It is apparent there is an increasing dependence by the Government on lottery funds,” Mr Moyle said. “The Government tends to run away from its responsibilities by sheltering behind the Golden Kiwi.” “Thrice Not Needed” Though the petitioners attempted to show that gambling in New Zealand was in creasing, Mr Moyle said he did not regard this as proven. The evidence by the Treasury and others tended to indicate a decrease when examined against increased incomes. He recommended that, after a sufficient time had elapsed, the Government should have an inquiry into the effects o’ the first Mammoth. Mr Harrison said it was clear people did not buy lot tery tickets for charity, bu’ to get a reward. A person who was living a full life did not need the “thrill” of a Mammoth.

“The interest in gambling reflects too much the attitude of getting something for nothing,” he said. “The churches are also guilty, in expecting the Government to do their job for them. They should try to create a climate in which gambling will not flourish.”

Mr H. G. R. Mason (Opp.. New Lynn) deplored the amount of advertising connected with lotteries. The pub lication over the air of lottery results had been described as being justified be-

cause the lists were news. It was not easy to establish one's motives in buying a lottery ticket. Most citizens would find it hard to state what were their motives for any particular action. “This advertising over the breakfast table, when it goes right into the bosom of the family, seems to me to be a shocking thing,” said Mr Mason. “This is not news, it is advertising—and it is something that should be looked at.” Control Wanted Mr Douglas said that the petitions, the report and the discussion emphasised the need, for an examination of gambling. Such a course had not been undertaken thoroughly anywhere in the world, though the United States was conducting such a study. He supported Mr Moyle in the idea of having an investigation of the Mammoth at a later date. He had mixed feelings on the matter because he had known many cases of trouble in families brought about when one member was a compulsive or involuntary gambler.

“In making these facilities for gambling available, we should so control them that people should not be tempted beyond their depth,” Mr Douglas said. Mr Dick said the petitioners had said success in a lottery was often synonymous with disaster.

No-one wanted to see facilities for gambling and betting extended, especially among young people. This was the most direct form of gambling in which no sport and no skill was involved. Churches’ Duty One of the basic Christian laws put forward by the petitioners was that money should be gained only through the law of fair exchange, the law of honest labour, and the law of love, said Mr Dick. It must be realised, however, said Mr Dick, that gambling did exist in New Zealand, and that no amount of legislation would stamp it out. If big prizewinners did not have the strength of character to receive their prizemoney without plunging themselves into unhappiness, then it was possibly the duty of the church leaders to educate them. The petitioners had said that grants from Golden Kiwi profits tended to make people become too “spoon-fed,” but his experience was the direct opposite, especially in country districts. This was because organisations were only granted a percentage of -the money they needed from Golden Kiwi funds, and had to find the rest themselves. Grants were also used to assist such things as medical research, old people’s welfare and youth groups. In this way it was a form of voluntary indirect taxation, relieving pressure on the Consolidated Fund for these works. He believed the institution of the Mammoth was an honest attempt on the part of the Minister of Interna] Affairs to staunch the flow of lottery money overseas.

Finding In 1946 Mr Bailey said he had voted for the implementation of. the petitioners’ requests. All the evidence, except that from the Internal Affairs Department, was in favour of the petitioners’ views, he said, and 14,000 people had signed the petition. “I would hate to think we have reached the stage where we rely entirely on gambling for the welfare of old people.” The Royal Commission on Gaming and Racing in New Zealand in 1946 had advised against the institution of State lotteries, and no public opinion had been taken since then which suggested otherwise. “1 feel we should give consideration to this question, and now is the time to do it.” For the Government to say the lotteries were a fait accompli and that the petition was therefore redundant was not worthy of the House, said Mr Bailey. The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Seath) said the committee had dealt with a serious social problem. “I’m pleased it gave it such lengthy consideration and has been honest and courageous enough to bring back a realistic report." ■ Mr Seath said he thought the matter generally was one for the individual conscience and that the State should, not impose restrictions unless social problems became apparent He believed that if you drove a thing under cover, the more it thrived. “Many churches have ac-

cepted lottery funds and put them to good use, and they don’t seem to be any worse off for it.”

Mr Seath said the 5s Golden Kiwi tickets did not interfere too much with the family budget and some people would “hardly call it gambling.” Mr Edwards said he knew the petitioners would be disappointed. “I would point out the only support the petition received was from Labour members.” Government voice: Nonsense.

Mr Edwards: I would suggest even now it is not too late to have a Royal commission to investigate the incidence of gambling: The matter is far more important than this wishy-washy decision.”Mr Edwards urged a Royal Commission to “see if we are heading into the dangerous ground the petitioners feel we may be.” Mr Nordmeyer said it was one thing for the State not to impose unnecessary restrictions, but another for the State to set up and run a lottery. The previous Labour administration had before it, several times, proposals for extending the art union, but decided against it.

Mr Nordmeyer said people were disturbed when- the Golden Kiwi was extended and he felt the Government could have set out on a course which could have dangerous consequences. He believed the facilities for gambling were at that time already adequate and that Parliament should have been consulted before the Mammoth was introduced. Mr Nordmeyer asked the Government to place any further proposals for extensions before Parliament. More Prizes Mr P. Blanchfield (Opp., Westland) said he could not see any difference in gambling between buying a lottery ticket and gambling on the Stock Exchange. He advocated more prizes and said he thought there should be more £12,000 ones rather than the £60.000 prize of the Mammoth. There was likely to be more “moral decay” when a person suddenly found he had won £60,000 than when he found he had won £12,000.