OFF-COURSE BETTING PROPOSALS

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25734, 21 February 1949, Page 8

OFF-COURSE BETTING PROPOSALS

“WILL NOT ELIMINATE BOOKMAKING ” <P.A.) DUNEDIN, February 18. “Bookmaking will not be eliminated by the proposal offered in the gaming referendum,” said the Rev. J. Somerville tp-day in the course of a statement issued on behalf of the public questions committee of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand. Bookmaking could be checked by the present laws, Mr Somerville said. A vote against the proposal was a vote against off-course betting, both legal and illegal, and would encourage both State and police in the administration of the law.

The Presbyterian Church of New Zealand opposed the proposals for offcourse betting for five main reasons Mr Somerville said. First, the scheme would lead to an increase in the opportunities for gambling. Wherever further facilities had been granted for gambling, substantial increases had occurred. More respectable and legal conditions meant a greater incentive to bet. In South Australia, with the introduction of betting agencies in 1934. the volume of betting increased £3,000,000 in three years Second, the scheme would not eliminate the bookmaker. The Royal Commission admitted that its proposal would merely compete with bookmakers for off-course betting.. Secret betting and credit betting, which would mean easy betting and big betting, still gave the bookmaker a stake in gambling. The scheme was not an alternative, but an extra. Increased interest in betting would increase bookmakers’ opportunities. The Royal Commission in Queensland in 1936 recommended no recognition of any sort of off-course betting, but the enforcement of the existing laws. Effective results were obtained. Third, the scheme would create new problems of administration. It would mean an army of non-productive workers. Industry and commerce would be deprived of essential workers. Such wastage while the world needed food was immoral and selfish. Postal and telegraph staff would be further burdened and Saturday work increased, while essential communications would be retarded. Fourth, the racing interests’ attempt to whitewash the totalisator offices were unconvincing. In South Australia such agencies were abolish«d m 1945, because crime increased «nd trade slackened, while young people frequented the betting shops. The Racing and Trotting Conferences considered theirs would be different, tout their reasons were not forthcoming. Bettors would inevitably congregate. Big social difficulties loomed toP if the proposal was passed. Fifth, the exponents of the scheme were not disinterested. Church and social workers were. The Royal Commission expected the conferences would receive from £1,800,000 per annum from the scheme. The church maintained that the racecourse was the place for racing.