OFF-COURSE BETTING

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25608, 24 September 1948, Page 8

OFF-COURSE BETTING

PARLIAMENT

P OLL TO BE HELD IN FEBRUARY

Other Proposals In Report Deferred

HOUSE DISCUSSES GAMING BILL (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 23. The referendum on whether an off-course betting system should be provided will be held in February. This was disclosed by Mr R. M. Macfarlane (Government, Christchurch Central) when he spoke on the Gaming Poll Bill second reading in the House of Representatives this evening. The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr W. E. Parry), w r ho is in charge of the bill, said other recommendations of the Gaming Commission would be deferred until after the poll.

Several of this evening’s speakers, notably the Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland), deplored the extent of gambling. The debate was adjourned. Mr Parry said it was 28 years since the gaming law was revised by the House. The Government therefore felt that it would be in accordance with public opinion to refer the question of off-course betting to the people as a whole. Mr A. S. Sutherland (Opposition. Hauraki): If the referendum is carried will you implement the decisions of the Gaming Commission? Mr Parry said he was under no obligation on the bill to discuss the pros and cons of the commission’s findings. Mr M. H. Oram (Opposition, Manawatu). Too difficult. Mr Parry, replying to questions, said the people’s decision on the referendum question would be implemented by the Government. Irrespective of what the decision on the referendum was—and if it was against off-course betting facilities that decision itself would not require a bill to implement it —a bill would be brought down in the session of Parliament after the referendum. Status Quo in Meantime The referendum decision would provide a valuable background for the bill the Government would bring down, but until the referendum had been held and a bill prepared for Parliament the status quo in the gaming laws would be preserved. “I want to let racing clubs know there will be no interference in regard to licences or permits in the meantime until we have received the people’s decision on the issue to be referred to them.” the Minister said. A reasonable and proper course was being followed by the Government in taking the referendum, Mr Parry said. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) said the Minister had taken half an hour to say nothing. He had not even explained what the referendum was about. It was to determine whether there should be offcourse betting through the totalisator by means to be provided by the Racing and Trotting Conferences. Mr Parry had declared that the Gov--ernment would introduce a gaming bill irrespective of the result of'the referendum, but had disclaimed any obligation at present to discuss the Government’s attitude to the commission’s findings in general. If no changes at all were to be made as a result of the commission’s inquiry, then its appointment would be simply a wicked waste of money. System of Betting Shops The referendum meant that the people would be asked whether they supported the provision of additional legal facilities for betting on horse racing, said Mr Holland. The commission’s report provided for what would be in effect an intricate system of betting shops or totalisator If such facilities were provided irf one’ centre every village in the country would demand similar treatment. The Minister of Defence (Mr F. Jones): We have illegal facilities now. Mr Holland: If the Government knows about illegal facilities it should put a stop to them. Mr Holland said that under the scheme proposed by the Gaming Commission crowds of people would frequent betting shops. If dividends were paid out on Mondays after Saturday racing there would be thousands of people leaving work—at a time when New Zealand envisaged more production—collect their dividends. “I am uncompromisingly opposed to the establishment of betting shops in any form anywhere in New Zealand,” said Mr Holland. Members of both sides of the House: Hear, hear.

Would Vote Against in Poll Mr Holland said he also stood however for the right of the people to decide such issues for themselves. He would vote for the bill providing a referendum, but on his own voting paper when the referendum was held he would certainly vote against the provision of additional betting facilities.

Mr Holland said it was wrong that on the day the vote was taken employers should have to pay their staffs while thev took time off to vote. Those’ who could not record a vote on this issue in their own time did not deserve to have a vote at all. The vote should be taken on the day when racing was held—on /a Saturday. Was that too much to ask? Mr Holland, after outlining the recommendations in the commission’s report, asked why the Minister had been silent on the question of provision for doubles betting on the totalisator. What were the views of the Government? Was the matter to be the subject of a further referendum or was it to be included in the bill? There were other issues, such as the telegraphing of bets to totalisators and the publication of tipping information and dividends. “Too Much Gambling” In his judgment, there was far too much gambling in the country, said Mr Holland. In addition to £22.000,000 a year invested on the totalisator, £24,000.000 was invested with bookmakers. That was the amount that . had been admitted, but his. information was that the figure was much higher than that, and that in fact the total amount spent in betting was probably the colossal figure of £60.000,000. The great weakness in the bill was that it made provision for additional betting facilities. The Prime Minister (Mr Fraser): What do you suggest? Mr Holland: This is a Government measure. If the Government is bankrupt of ideas, the proper course is for it to vacate and make way for a Government that has some. Mr Holland said he would favour any change in facilities that would reduce the amount of gambling and, particularly the amount of credit gambling. which was one of the biggest curses in gambling to-day. A great amount of credit gambling was done by working people, who gambled away their earnings before they had been paid. The bill would create an unholy alliance between the Churches and the bookmakers, said Mr Holland. The Churches were against gambling in all forms and bookmakers would oppose the bill to preserve their own illegal system. No law could stop gambling, but it was the duty of Parliament to give the people reasonable facilities to meet their needs. Other Recommendations Macfarlane said that if people voted in favour of the offcourse system of betting, the Government would augment that decision by legislation. The proposal in the bill was the best possible to divert millions of pounds from illegal channels. He would defy any Government to stamp out illegal betting entirely, hut legal airr> COUrSe betting would assist in this

The question of a doubles totalisator end others mentioned by the commission were bound up with the vote provided by the bill, and when thht was taken—and it was the major question —the other questions could be examined in the light of its result, said Mr Macfarlane. The system clubs had in mind might take an entirely different form from the betting shop? mentioned, but whatever it was, provided the people wanted it. it would take a considerable time to operate throughout the country. He believed that £42,000.000 a year was going through the bookmakers and the reason was that, irrespective of the gambling habit, people would demand the right to gamble so long as there were races to gamble on. The only thing to do to prevent gambling would be to deny people objects on which to wager. Many people could attend only local meetings, but they liked to follow their racing fancies throughout the year and they wanted facilities to gamble. Mr Macfarlane said that if people could not get legal betting facilities they would continue to bet illegally. He did not think many people were ruined by totalisator betting, because 60 per cent, of the bets through the totalisators were in 10s units, 30 per

cent, in £1 units, and the balance in large denominations. View of Churches

Mr Macfarlane, dealing with the attitude of church groups as reviewed in the report of the commission, said that the group known as the associated churches regarded betting as a moral evil. The view of th* Anglican Church was somewhat different and would by many people be defined as more liberal. The view of the Roman Catholic Church appeared to be in agreement with that of the Anglican Church in several major respects, and it did not regard gambling in itself as morally wrong or sinful,* but considered that by excesses it might become so Mr J. R. Marshall (Opposition, Mount Victoria) said that gambling to-day extended far beyond the confines of the racecourse. In every town and village there were bookmakers, and in every shop and factory of any size there were agents who collected bets from workers and passed them on to the bookmakers. On an average £2O a head was spent on gambling each year. Excessive gambling had serious social consequences. It led to extravagance, debt, and impoverishment. It was a cause of fraud and had a corrupting influence on sport. Parliament had a duty to develop a public conscience against excessive gambling, and the provision of increased gambling facilities was not legislation they should endorse. Law Should Be Enforced

Mr Ormond Wilson (Government, Rangitikei) said that if the law were being disregarded then it was being brought into disrepute. He believed the majority of the people wanted offcourse betting, and it should be legalised. Once the law had been modernised to reflect public opinion, then it should be enforced. Mr Wilson said he thought it would be reasonable to legalise small lotteries conducted by organisations to raise funds if prizes were not more than about £lO.

Mr S. W. Smith (Opposition. Hobson) said the Government, having appointed a Gaming Commission, should have been prepared to legislate in the light of its recommendations instead of passing the buck back to the public. He asked what would happen if less than half of the electors voted and a minority of the people determined the outcome of the referendum. Would the Government take the decision as being a mandate? Mr Smith said Maoris would be allowed to vote apparently with little check, for the Minister had admitted that the Maori roll would not be ready by the time the referendum was taken. That being so, Europeans might as well go to the poll “early and often.” as it had been alleged some Maori voters did at the last General Election. Mr Smith said he thought that if off-course betting was legalised its actual volume might decrease, because a fiftle “more effort would be required than for betting with bookmakers over the telephone. He favoured the change if it would reduce the total amount of betting, but there would have to be safeguards to prevent “teen-agers” being encouraged to spend their money in betting shops. Opposition to Humbug 0 Mr Smith said he would not oppose the bill, but it was a weak way of dealing with the question. In reply to an interjection by a Government member. Mr Smith said he would deal with the question by allowing every member in the House to have an independent vote on it. “I think we are a lot of hypocrites about art unions,” said Mr Smith. The sum of £273,000 had been spent oh them and only £65,000 had been expended on prizes. Art unions could not be ethical because they were small. It was either right or wrong and they were licensed by the Minister, who knew that thousands of pounds went out of the country every year to Australian lotteries. Mr Jones: You believe in a State lottery? Mr Smith: I don’t believe in humbug. Mr Smith said he would prefer to see lotteries wiped right off the slate where there was such a small return as £65.000 for the expenditure of £273.000.

A Government member: The profits go back to the people. Mr Smith said that if the Minister could notarun a lottery with more success there must be something wrong with it.

Duty to Vote The Minister of Transport (Mr F. Hackett) said the Government had avoided gaming issues for many years. The Labour Government was taking a referendum to locate what was in the minds of the people and, if they did not favour off-course betting, then it was the bounden duty of the Government and the police to see that no offcourse betting of any kind was allowed.

Mr Webb: What if it is a small poll? Mr Hackett said it was the duty of every person to record his vote. Racing and trotting clubs owed a responsibility to the people who kept them go? ing. He had known of racing clubs in the Dominion which had deliberately robbed people of the chance of winning. At a recent meeting of the Auckland Racing Club in a two-year-old race, the red-hot favourite ran second. He said the. horse was disqualified after weighing in and the trainer was fined £lO for failing to put weights in the saddle. People who had backed the horse had no chance of winning and he considered the dividend should have been withheld.

Mr Hackett said he thought racing clubs had too much power as far as their rules were concerned. Some form of defence should be provided when a jockey was hauled before the stewards. In the main, however, the people who were vitally interested in racing clubs had one desire, to keep racing clean, and the public was generally well provided for.