Like any other business, the Lotteries Commission has
expenses to meet and staff to pay, so it was not surprising
its chairman Judy Kirk and chief executive Todd McLeay should
be delighted with the results for the 2010-11 financial year
- record sales of just under $926 million.
That was a spend of about $290 on Lotto tickets, Instant Kiwi
scratchies, Keno cards and other commission products by every
New Zealander over the age of 18.
Revenue was up $143.6 million on the previous year, a result
the pair called "particularly gratifying" in today's
challenging retail environment. What's more, Mrs Kirk and Mr
McLeay said they had one specific strategic objective for the
future - to encourage more people to play.
Should that objective ring alarm bells? There is one crucial
difference between the Lotteries Commission and other
businesses. If the commission was selling shoes, clothes or
toasters, one might applaud such stellar financial results
and Mrs Kirk's and Mr McLeay's determination to attract more
custom.
But the Lotteries Commission is not selling shoes, clothes or
toasters - its stock in trade is hopes and dreams and the
lure of mega millions for the lucky few.
Given that fact, should the commission be looking to draw
even more money from the pockets of New Zealanders?
Kiwis know in their heart of hearts the chances of a major
win are infinitesimally small but they take the punt anyway,
justifying their spending as an investment or a speculation.
They imagine it might be them who wins the next huge prize of
$8 million, $25 million, $28 million or $35 million, all
staggeringly large amounts which have been won by individuals
or syndicates in the 2010-11 year.
In these recessionary times, and with job insecurity an
ever-present threat for some, research shows those struggling
financially are more likely to buy a Lotto ticket as a
potential get-rich-quick fix to their problems.
What's $5 or $10 on a Lotto ticket when you have lost your
job, face mounting debts or about to lose your house? And the
temptation to buy a Lotto ticket is everywhere. The brightly
coloured Lotto counters are usually the first thing to hit
shoppers' eye when entering most supermarkets and many
suburban dairies.
Tempting, too, are the signs on the window trumpeting the
successful sale of a major prize, and media coverage of how
Mr and Mrs Average's life has been transformed by their
winnings.
But it would be unfair to single out the Lotteries Commission
unduly for its aggressive marketing. New Zealanders have a
love affair with gambling which extends beyond Lotto and have
spent about $2 billion annually on all forms of gambling over
recent years.
A comprehensive survey carried out last year by the Health
Sponsorship Council revealed just over four in five people
had gambled at least once in the previous 12 months. Of those
people, 60% had purchased a lottery ticket, 43% had bought a
raffle ticket or attended a fundraising casino evening, 33%
had bought an Instant Kiwi ticket and 29% had made money bets
with family or friends.
Pokie machines in pubs and clubs, the subject of much
negative publicity as a particularly addictive form of
gambling, were played by 16% of gamblers. A relatively low
number of those responding to the survey - 12% - had bet on
horse or greyhound races, 10% had gambled at a casino, and 4%
had bet on a sports event.
Established 25 years ago, the commission is a Crown-owned
entity and, as such, returns its profits to its shareholders,
the New Zealand public. In the 2010-11 year, it allocated
just over half its turnover, $498.4 million, to prizes whiled
a further $244 million was spent on taxes and retailers'
commission. Its $183.3 million profit for the year was
distributed in grants to a diverse range of activities,
including community facilities, heritage and cultural groups,
health research projects and search and rescue equipment.
That is the welcome flip side to the rather more ambivalent
question of whether the State should be parting citizens from
their money through the promotion of gambling - particularly
when large numbers of those who participate can ill afford
it.
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.