THE PRESS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1986. Free vote on Lotto

Press, 27 February 1986, Page 12

THE PRESS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1986. Free vote on Lotto

resolving that members of Parliament Aoold have a free vote on legislation to enable the introduction of Lotto, the .-.Government caucus has emphasised the moral question of enlarging the scope for gambling. The battle will also be over the effect that Lotto might have on the revenue of the racing industry. For either reason, members of Parliament may feel more comfortable if they are not bound by a party decision. The emphasis given to the moral aspect of the debate is not mistaken and members are certain to be subject to pressure from many people and organisations to resist the innovation of Lotto. Claims being made for the game as a revenue-raising device obviously support the view that expenditure on gambling will increase. If it does not, there is no point in the exercise, for it would not yield the funds for sport and social and cultural causes. This revenue is the object of the campaign to get the game going. People who object to many more millions being redistributed through gambling can therefore point to the forecast scale of the game; and the more promising Lotto looks as a fund-raiser the greater will be the concern of those who see social harm in more gambling expenditure. The chances are that most people in New Zealand will not participate in Lotto, or will take an interest in it only occasionally. This does not deny the majority support shown for Lotto in a public opinion poll. Support in the poll is not a declaration of intent to put up money. The conclusion must be that, if the turnover forecasts by Lotto’s advocates are

sound, households that put up the money will be paying out several hundred dollars a year. Reason dictates that these households will be those in which other gambling already commands part of the family pay packet The moral and social objectors have a strong case to put to members of Parliament to oppose Lotto, especially if they believe that when Lotto is introduced economic times will be hard. Such arguments could be dismissed much more readily if it could be shown that the social benefits to flow from Lotto’s revenue comfortably outweighed any social harm. The trouble with Lotto, like other large-scale gambling, is that the yield for sports and other beneficiaries is relatively small — less than one third of the total take. Herein lies the real objection to Lotto as a fund-raiser. Of course, the prize-money has to be attractive to make the game popular. Inevitably the Government will want its tax take from the turnover; yet it may be asked why the Government should take millions out of the game and urge, at the same time, that the object is to benefit sport and culture. Logically the Government would add the tax revenue immediately to the pool from which grants would be made. Better still, it would simply ignore Lotto as an expensive way of taking money out of some pockets — many of them not well lined — and treat the declared and acknowledged needs of sport and other causes to be worthy of attention from general taxes that would be gathered much more fairly.