GAMING BILL.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19152, 8 November 1927, Page 9

GAMING BILL.

DEBATE IN HOUSE.

AMENDMENT TO "KILL"

DEFEATED. BOOKMAKERS AND TOTALISATOR [THE FRESS SpecUl Sirrice.] WELLINGTON, November 7. There was a rush for the galleries in the House of Representatives to-night, the attraction being the second reading of Sir George Hunter's Gaming Amendment Bill. Sir George Hunter, in a brief speech, explained his Bill., He thanked the Prime Minister for giving time and opportunity for moving the second reading of the Bill, to which the main objection was that it would encourage gambling. This, ho contended, would not be the case. It would, on the other hand, divert betting from illegal into legitimate channels. He contended that it would not increase gambling. To prove this he claimed there had been a decrease in the money put through the totalisator of £964,000 last year. The bookmaker betted on credit, and the totalisator for cash only, and it was used only in the open on a certain number of days, while the bookmaker betted on any day and in any place. There was nothing new in the Bill because it only re-enacted what was low some years ago. There was nothing compulsory about the Bill, no club being obliged to accept money for investment on the totalisator. He explained the clauses of the Bill, contending that the non-pub-lication of dividends was an undue restriction on the rights of newspapers. It was absurd that New Zealand diviends wore published in the Australian papers, while they could not be published in our own.

Mr Savage Leads the Attack. The first objection to the Bill came from Mr Savage, Labour member for Auckland West. He declared that the Bill was political humbug. One moment they were asked to pass the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill, and in the next to increase the facilities for gambling I This, he said, was a Racing Clubs' Bill. A voice: Oh, no. Mr Savage: The Racing Clubs want to wipe out the illicit trader, and to do his job themselves '"on moral grounds." Mr Glenn: Would you legalise the bookmakers? Mr Savage: I would refer the question to the people. v An hon. member: What would you do yourself? Mr Savage: I wish to clip the wings of the Racing Conference. They say that gambling is inherent in the human race. That is news to me. It may be inherent vhen they are "certs," but I know something about "certainties." I know too well, to .my sorrow. (Laughter.) . He quoted from "Hansard" a division list showing how members of the House had previously voted on the clause providing for the double tote, and asked them to be consistent and vote against it again. He intended to do so. He- wondered if the Government would refer the questionof betting to a 'referendum of the people. Mr Lysnar: You would be swamped if you did!

Bookmaker and Racing Conference. Mr Savage: We might be swamped, but the member for Gisborne would bo wrecked. Continuing, Mr Savage said the question was whether betting was right or wrong, and if it was legalised he could see no difference between the tote and the bookmaker. But the bookmaker did not please the Racing Conference, and that close corporation would' not control racing if he could prevent it. Their wings would be clippei if he could do it. He was not in favour of the bookmaker; what he wanted was to see this question referred to the people, and they should decide whether there should be the tote or the bookmaker. He chided members of the Reform Party for inconsistency in opposing this class of legislation one session, and supporting it the next. All h asked of them was to be consistent. He objected to the Post and Telegraph Department being mixed up with gambling. If money could be put on at every country telegraph office, it must increase gambling. They were asked on "moral" grounds to wipe out the bookmaker, and if they did that they must increase the business of the tote. If the tote was a good thing, why did not the State take charge of it? They allowed it to be-run by a close corporation. He denounced the practice growing up of country clubs holding their meetings on city courses, where they could get more money on the tote in five minutes than they would get in their own districts in a year. A Bill that was no use to anyone could not be killed too soon, and he asked those opposed to it to kill this one outright, and not, out of sympathy _ with its mover, give it a second reading.

"License the Bookmaker." Mr Potter (Roskill) said he could not understand the Government giving facilities for this Bill to come before the House. . He could not understand the Government allowing the Racing Conference to dictate the business of Parliament, When next members ol the Government asked the people to economise, what would Ministers say when they were asked: "What about your Gaming Bill?" With all the important matters with which Parliament had to deal, the Government could find time to waste over this one He maintained that the Bill would not hurt the bookmaker. He would license bookmaking because what could not be eradicated should be controlled. The police were trying to catch the bookmakers, and he (Mr Potter) did not know how many of them were betting with the bookmakers. Racing was no longer the king of sports; it was nothing but legalised gambling, it was time the State took control of racing and it should not be controlled bv the Racing Conference, which was run by Sir George Clifford. So far as racing was concerned, there was no doubt that the Government was under the control of the Racing Conference. Fifteen private members' Bills had been denied hearing. Why was this one being so specially favoured? Perhaps the explanation was that the Treasury wanted more money, as suggested by Sir George Clifford. But no matter how much money came into the Treasury, it was too high a price to pay for the moral injury that the Bill would do. Mr McCombs. Mr McCombs (Lyttelton). said the Bill was re-enacting clauses which Sir Joseph Ward, when Prime Minister, was compelled to repeal because of the outcry in.the country against what was going on. To the racing clubs the most important clauses were those which permitted the telegraphing of investments on the totalisator and tho publishing of dividends —th© first to increase their revenue, and the second to

secure greater advertising for their meetings. Sir George Hunter's figures of totalisator investments -were selected, and misleading. There was no decrease in race gambling, which was a great and growing evil. Ho asked the Prime Minister to sav why such special facilities should be given this particular Bill. Did he really think it was in the interests of the people at large?

A Word for the Bill. Mr Glenn said ho and others were supporting the Bill for tho purpose of driving vice above ground. It was well known bookmakers were established in the Dominion, and the only way they could be defeated was to divert betting into legitimate channels. Referring to a statement by Mr l'otter that he (Mr Glenn) had been betting with bookmakers, he admitted that he had done so eight years ago, but not since. Mr Glenn said bookmakers were betting everywhere. Mr MeConibs: How do you know?

Mr Glenn: Why blink your eyes to facts? You know as well as I do that you have only to go to a certain corner of the Square in Christclmrch, and to a certain lane in Auckland to find them, and it is the sarno in other towns.

Mr Glenn put in the first words in defence of tho Racing Conference. Sir George Clifford, he said, was a man of marked integrity and ability, who had earned the approval of every fair-mind-ed man in this country. As head of the Racing Conference he had done splendid work. As a mattor of fact, racing was conducted as well and cleanly in New Zealand as in any country in the world. Mr Glenn defended the judicial activities of tho racing clubs and the Conference, and said that he had never known a single case of disqualification where it was not thoroughly desorved. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central): I have letters which show just tho contrary. Mr Glenn said they should end the prohibition on the newspapers reporting dividends. What was the use of it when anyone could listen on the wireless or walk round the corner to a bookmaker and get the information just the same. Thcro was nothing to be ashamed of in a goid healthy bet. (Laughtor.) He noticed (this with emphasis) that the churches camo to him just the same for a subscription, and he did not see tho churches loaving out the racing clubs of this country. "I don't notice the Salvation Army leaving me out either," added Mr Glenn. (Laughter.)

Mr Armstrong Moves Amendment. After the supper adjournment interest in the debate began to flag. Tho galleries were more than half empty, and there were only 26 members in the House when Mr H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) commenced his speech. Mr Armstrong said he would oppose the Bill, not because he was opposed to racing, but because he was satisfied it was not in the best interests of tho country that facilities for gambling should be increased. There was only one clause in the Bill about which Eacing Clubs were concerned. That was the clause which enabled people to wire money to the totalisator. The remainder of the Bill was only bo much padding. One of the greatest reforms effected in New Zealand was the stopping of the practice of wiring mon'ey on to the course. This Bill would convert every telegraph office in the country into • an agency for the totalisator. "I have a bet when I can afford it," said Mr Armstrong, "but it js usually a very small one. I was born and reared in a part of this country surrounded with racing stables. I worked in a racing stable, and the people I associated with were just as clean and honourable as any citizens in the community." Mr Armstrong said he would not suggest that the Beform Party was behind the Bill, but some Ministers were, otherwise, \yiiy was this Bill brought up from eleventh last week to first to-day f Mr Nosworthy: It is first favourite to-day. Mr Armstrong said he was satisfied that New Zealand had all the racing that was good for it to have. We had gone to extremes, and were putting far too much money through the totalisator. He would therefore move as an amendment that instead of the Bill being read a second time now, it be read this day Biz months. The amendment was seconded by Mr H. G.R.| Mason (Eden). Sir Joseph Ward Opposes.

Sir Joseph Ward (Invercargill) said that in his opinion no Act put upon the Statute Book by the Government of the day should be repealed by a Bill introduced by a private member. To do as was now being done looked to him like an espapo from duty on the part of the Government. The law as it stood today was the result of the unanimous feeling of Parliament, both Government and Opposition, in 1907. That feeling grew out of ten years of agitation against excessive gambling, which was leading scores of young people astray, and he could not see his way to go back on that legislation, remembering - the reasons which were behind it when facilities for gambling were much greater than they were now. He believed in the totalisator as being the fairest way to bet. He believed that racing in New Zealand was well conducted, but he did not believe' in this Bill. He agreed that the taxation on racing was of crushing severity.

"To Scotch the Bookmaker." The Hon. Mr Anderson said the Act of 1920 had been made ineffective by an amendment moved by the present Leader of the Opposition. In the Bill as introduced there was provision for the summary conviction of bookmakers. Mr Holland moved to strike out _ the word "summary," and, Mr* Massey agreeing, that was done. This made it impossible to make the Act effective. He believed this Bill would do a great deal to scotch the bookmaker, and ho intended to vote for it, to see whether it would not be possible by competition to strike the bookmaker out. The bookmaker, in his opinion, was a greater menace than the >totalisator.

Mr Lee (Auckland East): Why not compete with the burglar? Continuing, Mr Anderson said the Bill should have a fair trial, as it would be a means of regulating betting, rather than having it. indulged in promiscuously. Mr Parry (Auckland Central) said that while the Government prohibited investments in sweeps in Tasmania, by this legislation they were seeking to make every telfegraph office in the country an agent for the to:alisator. The whole point of the Bill was to increase betting, and so to increaso the revenue of the clubs. The Racing Conference should have its wings clipped, because some of the things it did were not above board, and could not be justified. He quoted instances of alleged partiality on the part of the Conference, and declared that so long as he was in the House, and opportunity arose for pushing for an enquiry into the methods employed by the Racing Conference, he would push for it. What justification could there be for refusing to permit jockeys to form a union, and so to deny to these boys a legal right which was given to every other worker in New Zealand? The opposition to the Bill <fas very determined. Every word of it would be carefully examined, and there were at least 150 amendments to be moved to it.

Mr Lysnar (Gisborne) argued on the lines that the Bill would help to control betting, and by so doing would decreaso betting. Those who supported Bible-reading in schools should support this Bill, because it stopped illegal and improper practices. At midnight it was understood .that the second reading of the Bill could be

carried if a guarantee were given that it would then be dropped. It was, however, stated that Sir George Hunter would not give any such guarantee. Amendment Defeated. The amendment was lost by 28 votes to 21. Following is the division list: For the Amendment (21): Armstrong, Bartram, Burnett, J. McK. Dickson, Eraser, Henare, H. Holland, Howard, D. Jones, Jordan, J. A. Lee, McCombs, McKcen, Martin, H. G. R. Mason, Parry, Potter, Ransom, F. J. Rolleßton, Savage, Veitch. Against the Amendment (28): Anderson, Atmore, Bell, Campbell, Coates, Dickie, J. S. Dickson, Eliott, Field, Glenn, J. It. Hamilton, Hawken, Hockly, Horn, Hunter, Linklater, Lysnar, J. Mason, Nosworthy, Pomare, Rhodes," J. C. Rolleston, Scddon, Sykes, Tapley, Ward, Williams, Young. Pairs for the Bill—McLeod, D. S. Reid, Hudson, R. W. Smith, MacMillan, Walter, Nash, Bellringer, E. P. Lee, Forbes, Wilford; against the BillWright, Bitchener, H. E. Holland, Stewart, Sullivan, Forsyth, McLennan, Urn, Luke, Sidey, Ngata. The House was still sitting when tbcj Telegraph Office closed. ~