CHARITY MONGERS

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 74, 1 April 1929, Page 8

CHARITY MONGERS

IN NEW SOUTH WALES

SUJMOUS ALLEGATIONS

(From "Tho Post's" Representative.) SYDNEY, 14th March.

New Zealand has something to bo thankful for in the legislation that permits of strict control of lotteries, art unions, and the like. In New South Wales tho legislation in this direction has provided many loopholes, and gravo abuses have been the consequence. Remarkable disclosures about the manner in which carnivals have been conducted, ostensibly for charity, but really for the benefit of professional "charity-mongers" were made in tho Legislative Council this week by the Attorney-General (Mr. P. S. Boyce), when moving the second reading of the Lotteries Bill.

Mr. Boyce said that tho organisation of charity carnivals iv New South Wales had been carried on partly by "charity-mongers" who "lived on tho game," and when one studied the results of their activities one blushed with shame to think that there were such people. Dealing with street carnivals and raffles Mr. Boyce- said that the Government had no intention of disturbing any genuine organisation of public-spirited people that was working for charity. But it did intend to seek power to investigate those carnivals which, apparently, collected a. good deal of money, and passed very little on to tho institutions that were-sup-posed to benefit. His department had made a list of carnivals and bazaars held during the- past threo years. Prom Ist July, 1925, to 30th June, 1928, a total of 178 art unions had been sanctioned by the department. The total prizes had been £98,388. Their total receipts were £344,065, but their expenditure was £216,147, leaving a disclosed profit of £127,916. Of the carnivals they knew about, a total of £670,000 had been received, about £331,000 had been distributed in expenses, and about £338,000 had been distributed to the institutions that benefited.

So much for tho carnivals that were checked. / There were many carnivals upon which the Government had no cheek whatever.. A carnival was started somewhere in the streets, allegedly to. aid some institution. Certain sums were received and sums were distributed. No one knew how much these people allocated to themselves as wages, or how much was paid to the stall assistants, who also received wages. The Department had received complaints to the effect that "Mrs. So-and-So got a motor-ear out of the carnival, and I only got so much." It waa known that there ■ were many people who since 1914 had lived by promoting carnivals, and pocketing part of tho profits themselves. Becently there was a carnival in a country town in aid of the local ambulance. The receipts were £116 and the ambulance received £9. A carnival for a Sunshine Club for. children realised £15, and showed a loss of £2 10s. A aeasido suburb held a carnival to aid suffering soldiers. The receipts were £52, and there waa a loss of £61. A more glaring instance of this sort of thing occurred at a coast town where a carnival was hold in aid of a hospital. The takings were £3198, and the,hospital got £31 2s sd. At a hospital carnival at another country town the receipts were £1211, and tho hospital received £46. There were several other instances where tho proceeds of the carnivals exceeded £1000, and tho institutions that were supposed to benefit received less than £100. Finally, there was a carnival in Sydney in aid of a building fund for a wellknown Australian league. The takings were £21,450, and the carnival showed a loss of £983.

"The trouble is," said Mr. Boyee, "that we do not know wliat wages are being paid, or what is the rent .of the stalls. We have eases where 75 per cent, of the gross takings goes to the man who runs tho merry-go-round, and he is probably the husband of the lady who is known as the honorary organiser of the carnival. I put 'forward this Bill as a non-party measure to stop any fleecing of the public in the name of charity."