THE PRESS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1986. Lotto costs too much

Press, 10 February 1986, Page 12

THE PRESS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1986. Lotto costs too much

Mainstream arguments against lotto are the moral case against enlarging the scope for organised gambling and the racing industry’s protest that lotto would damage the income of racing and trotting clubs. The racing industry can put up a strong case for protecting its revenue; though the effect of lotto on T.A.B. turn-over is a matter of speculation, and the exclusive right of the industry to the funds from large-scale gambling is not an easy principle to sustain. Neither the racing industry’s case nor the moral argument against lotto can be lightly dismissed; yet neither can be treated as completely compelling except by those who accept them as matters of basic conviction or social attitude. The real shakiness of the case for lotto lies in the motive for proposing it in the first place and in the inefficient and inequitable way in which the funds are obtained for sport, recreation, and the arts. The new stimulus for lotto comes from the Sports Development Inquiry Committee, which reported last November. Its recommendation is given added respectability by connecting the arts, and other worthy recipients of Lottery Board grants, with the case for introducing lotto. Advocates of a better deal for sports and the arts both see financial crises ahead. They are undoubtedly right. At the bottom of these crises — not restricted to New Zealand — is one sharp contradiction: while people everywhere assert the great importance of sports and the arts to practitioners, participants, audiences, and to the country as a whole, a great many people put a low money value on sports and culture. This central contradiction is supported by a whole range of minor inconsistencies. To all of those exceptions will be found; yet they illustrate thinking that creates the dilemma for the advocates and suppliers of sport and culture. Theatre tickets or concert prices are deemed to be too expensive; yet complainants will spend considerably more on the pleasure of a restaurant meal. The charges at sports grounds, ski-fields, stadiums, and other venues will be considered too high by people who spend huge sums in getting there. Sports club bars can have a large turn-over to yield funds to support the club; the club funds would be far healthier — and possibly the members as well — if the same sums went directly to the club. High prices are paid for smart sports clothing with enthusiasm, and satisfaction; yet an increase in club fees by the price of a shirt would be applied with caution. Of course, in addition to the people who illustrate the contradictions in expenditure and, the relative value they put on sport and culture, there are also plenty of people who can afford neither — or only in the most sparing way. From some of these people the lotto funds would come, and such people will not be a jot better off or more able to afford recreation and the arts. Underlying all this are the propositions that sports and the arts are "good for you” and good for the country as a whole. So it may well be; and a great part of the argument for funds appears to be directed at maintaining or raising national prestige, and

to creating those exemplary sports heroes who will bring fame to New Zealand and set goals for achievement by others. What is “good for you,” the theory goes, should be widely available to all and therefore as cheap as possible. Accepting the theory does not instantly justify lotto. The confidence of the Sports Foundation that lotto “will provide a stimulus to the whole gaming industry” is no guarantee that the recreations people seek will become more accessible. Yet none of these considerations provide the clue to the Parliamentarians for their decision on lotto or any other extension of gaming. The Sports Foundation estimates that, within three years, lotto could be yielding $42 million for grants to community groups. This would be welcome cash; though there are many sports — motor-cycling, yachting, horsemanship among them — that have brought fame to New Zealand, that would see very little support at local level if they asked for money to subsidise youngsters’ yachts and horses. Furthermore, the denial of such subsidies would probably be quite proper. The real objection to lotto is that, to produce, say, $42 million a year it has to have a turn-over of “up to $l5O million a year.” This is $l5O a household, on average, or $3 a week. In practice, this average is no guide because many households will have none of it. Most households that participate will have to contribute much more than this sum to achieve the forecast, which is probably not excessive. Given that some of the participants will become rich through prize-money, the great majority will be at least three times poorer than they need to be to provide the net revenue of the game. Simply facing the cost of sport, recreation and the arts head-on seems to be an affront to New Zealanders — or it is assumed to be an affront. Naturally there will be disputes and controversy about the way a fund will be dispensed. This will be so whether the fund comes from gambling or from taxes. For years, Governments that have been clear in the advocacy of “what is good for you” have avoided the responsibilities of dispensing the funds.

Turning fund-raising into gaming and giving the responsibility to a board is not just evading the issue; it is making the personal cost of fund-raising much greater than it need be. The Government can license more gambling if it wants to; but using this as an expensive way of supporting the arts and sport is a mistake. It is a mistake because it is not necessary.

If the Government thinks it is desirable to back the causes, particularly with money to assist international sports people and their training and tours, let it go ahead and do so. Such a policy should not, and need not, hinge on gambling that raises the price to the public. If it is so “good for us,” everyone might as well contribute through taxation. Lotto is an evasion.

The Government cannot conscientiously argue the need for supporting worthy causes in the national interest, acknowledge the reluctance of New Zealanders to fund these causes, and then leave the funding to chance.