BILL RIDICULED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 249, 21 October 1933, Page 9

BILL RIDICULED.

BETTING FACILITIES. SATIRICAL ATTACK. LABOUR MEMBER'S VIEW. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. Ridicule was thrown on Mr. E. F. Healy's Gaming Laws Amendment Bill in the House yesterday afternoon, when |Mr. W. J. Jordan (Labour, Manukau), in & humorous speech, made the definite assertion that the effect of the bill would be to bring betting into the homes of the people and make the postal officials canvassers for bets. Light-hearted interjections were frequent, and Mr. Jordan's replies kept the House in a stats of merriment. "The way this bill came down the straight was worthy of its title," said Mr. Jordan, in referring to the hurried manner in which Mr. Healy covered the case for the proposals. Mr. Healy: And no whips. . Mr. Jordan said that those who were enthusiastic about sport should be prepared to pay for it. The Auckland Cricket Association had brought out a professional in order to help the game. They had done so because of their love of cricket and did not expect the country to be taxed for the upkeep of their pastime. If persons cared to interest themselves in horse racing and cared to bring in horses which, over a given distance, could run quicker than any other horses —and delighted themselves in doing so —surely there was no reason why Parliament should see that the money put into this business should be safeguarded. The football enthusiast was one who attended the game and delighted in seeing the players on the field or who took part in the game. He did not go to the telephone box and put his week's wages on the result. Mr. A. Harris (Coalition Reform, Waitemata): They do it now with the bookmaker. Mr. Jordan: Well, you ought to know. (Laughter.) I won't name you and put it on record, but it) is a delightful confession. I wonder if the Minister of Justice will take a note of it.

Relief Work Gambling. Continuing, Ml*. Jordan said that the bill discouraged attendance at races and. made it easier for people to bet without o-oing to the course. Mr. Healy had said "that betting was being earned on on relief works. If that was a bad thing, why not stop it instead of encouraging it? According to Mr. Jordan, the bill was designed to bring horse racing into the home. If a thing were harmful it certainly should not be encouraged. Cards, for instance, were not played out in a paddock, although the speaker had seen a game played with two coins and a stick in a paddock. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates: Not bad, either. Mr. Jordan: Yes, "ten francs or any part of it," as they used to say. I can see the Finance Minister smiling when he recalls those times. They weren t too bad, either. _ He added that the bill was intended to brinr* betting into the home because by means of the telephone people could lay wagers, • Mr. Healy interjected that bets could only be made by telegraph, but M«. Jordan asserted that, as the bl " P " posed to repeal the prohibition on the use of the telephone for betting, that instrument could also be used. "Roll Up! Roll TJp!" Mr. Jordan quoted Mr. Healy's references to revenue from racing, and said he wondered how mucn had been obtained in revenue in the last 10 years by fines on drunks. If that principle were adopted, although drunkenness was decreasing, should Parliament make more facilities for drunkenness m order to increase the number of fines? It had been argued that racing clubs had been losin" money, but so had industrial and «"i.l houses. If the hill be«». law, the business agent of the Office would be bound to encourage betting by telegraph. One could imagine a postmaster standing out on the street trvin" to induce people to send teleVaml. The postmaster would say: "Roll up! roll up! This horse is bound to win. It carried 7.0 last time, and is carrying 7.3 to-day, with Richards or Donoghue up. Come and make your bets" 'It was not the duty of the nation to develop the power to lose for the people what they already had. At the present time undesirables were not allowed on a racecourse, but evidently the bill intended to give them facilities for betting. The Other Side. Mr. A. Harris (Coalition Reform, Waitemata) suggested that a stranger who had been listening to Mr. Jordan would have been convinced that he was hearing one of the strongest advocates for the bookmaking class. Surely Mr. Jordan knew that telephoned betting was going on every day from thousands of homes, and that the bill would prevent it. It would make betting and horse racing cleaner than it was to-day. He felt that Mr. Jordan had been misinformed. Mr. R. Semple (Labour, Wellington East): Do you want to see the Post Office turned into a gambling den? Mr. Harris: I would sooner see it done over the Post Office counter than in a bookmaker's office. Publication of Dividends. Mr. F. W. Schramm (Labour, Auckland East) suggested it was not a question whether the bookmaker was good or bad, but whether the existing law relating to gaming could -be improved. In 1907 the provisions of Mr. Healy's bill were cut out of the law, the legislation proposed by the late Sir Joseph Ward, who declared that the double totalisator and the telegraphing of money to the machine were not in the best interests of New Zealand. Sir Joseph was the greatest PostmasterGeneral New Zealand had, seen, and he could speak from many years' experience as to the illegal use made of the Post Office. Mr. P. A. de la Perrelle (Coalition United, Awarua): He changed his mind. Mr. Schramm: He never changed the law. While Mr. Schramm was strongly opposed to telegraphic betting and could see no possible advantage to racing through the double totalisator, he considered there was no harm in publishing dividends in the newspapers, because that information could be received from Australia over the radio and also from outside newspapers. The bill was "talked out," and Mr. Healy nominated next Wednesday for the resumption of the debate. 1