The Grey River Argus. TUESDAY, June 20, 1933. N.Z. STATE LOTTERIES.

Grey River Argus, 20 June 1933, Page 4

The Grey River Argus. TUESDAY, June 20, 1933. N.Z. STATE LOTTERIES.

When stumped for a monetary method of assisting exporters, the Government of this country in the final resort could think of nothing but to copy Australia’s exchange policy. It therefore will surprise none except, perhaps, the section of the community which is opposed Io the series of art unions already held, I hat the Government should now be nib-

bling at another expedient for “raising the wind” that has been tried out with evident success on the other side of Tasman Sea. Sydney cablegrams state that a Mr Neil AlcArthur is now studying the several lottery systems in vogue in Australia, and that lie is doing so on behalf of the New Zealand Government. Although this is officially denied at Wellington, it may be presumed that the report is not without some element of foundation. It is said Mr McArthur's investigation is only a private one, and that the Government is in no way concerned, but “where there is smoke, there is fire,” and it is at least doubtful whether the investigator would be there on such a mission, or would be appointed to make the drawing yesterday for the New South Wales State Lottery, in private interests only. .Moreover, the official in control of the New South Wales lottery caps the report with a statement that next session will see a Bill before the Dominion Parliament to establish a New Zealand State Lottery. In view of our succession of lotteries already held, and of their sustained popularity, not to mention that of the Tasmanian. Queensland and New South Wales venturi's, the advent of the State here into this form of revenue raising was to have been expected sooner than this. Tattersails, for instance, has been of considerable financial assistance to the Tasmanian Government for many years past, and it was doubtless with an eye to the large amount of money invested by its own people in that “consultation” that a former Queensland Labour Administration introduced the popular “Golden Casket” in the northern State. Its results prompted New South Wales to similar action, and it is now disclosed that there are every week no fewer than nine thousand New Zealand applications for tickets in the New South Wales lottery. This means that quite a substantial sum must thereby be leaving this country, for there still are many patrons of “Tatis” as well. At the same time, it is undeniable that the only means of cheeking the investment of this money oversea is the provision within the country of a similar attraction. There are those who object to anything of the sort upon ethical grounds, but they have never demonstrated that it is immoral for a person to gamble in this fashion when no more is invested than such person can afford. On the other and. to spend beyond one’s means in directions other than those here in question is equally as reprehensible as to do so in gambling in any shape or form. No doubt, the Government would be apt to welcome any innovation that might make up for the fall in its revenue from the totalizator, whereas votaries of the turf might be prone to fear a loss of financial support should many of those now investing in tote tickets prefer to buy lottery tickets instead. The tote indeed is often enough so similar to a lottery that not a few who have had reason to recognise this fact would be well pleased to have the opportunity to try a change without the necessity of sending their money oversea for the purpose. The danger that people should be diverted from a sense of self-reliance by the possibility of “making a rise” from a lottery has often been the theme of discourses against this and every other form of gambling, but it cannot be demonstrated that the Dominion art unions have had little effect in destroying such sense of responsibility. Indeed, it would be hard to prove that either in Australia or here the lotteries have even interfered to any extent with wagering- on the turf. On the other hand, a State lottery would produce an appreciable State revenue, while it would also be for a certain number the means of acquiring a small fortune from time to time without impoverishing anybody. The matter, in fact, is rather one of expediency than anything else, and the present is a juncture when it is doubtless most expedient for the Government to utilise every means of replenishing its funds which is in its nature a commonsense means. The proceeds of State lottery might add considerably, for instance, to the unemployment funds. There are other proposals in that regard, such as the raising of an internal loan of £lO 000,000 deserving of favourable consideration, but they all entail a liability that is conspicuous by its absence from a lottery. If, as appears probable, the Government is contemplating this innovation, the fact that the first intimation should come from abroad is not remarkable, as the idea would be, of course, to avert as far as possible an agitation against, it. The main considerations in favour of the venture are the extreme need of revenue and the present loss of money due to the patronage here accorded to oversea lotteries. These in the estimation of probably a considerable majority in New Zealand would be enough to justify the institution of the State lottery. j