GAMING BILL

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25934, 14 October 1949, Page 6

GAMING BILL

Debate Begun In House OPPOSITION’S SUPPORT (New Zealand Press Association.) WELLINGTON, October 14. It was not until the House of Representatives went off the air this evening that the second reading debate was begun on the Gaming Amendment Bill. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) said the Opposition would support the bill because it had two safeguards: that the scheme should first be approved by the Government and that there would be an annual review by Parliament. The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Parry), moving the second reading, said that the referendum had shown by a majority of two to one that the people favoured a system of off-course betting and there was no other thing lor the Government to do but to bring down appropriate legislation. Offeburse betting was the key to the Racing Commission’s findings. It was not known how much a totalisator agency scheme would cost, but to put the scheme into operation lhe bill gave the Minister of Finance authority to advance the necessary funds lor the Totalisator agency Board, said Mr Parry. It was only by trial and error that the requirements of the scheme could be determined. Mr Parry said he could not vouch for the 100 per cent, success of the scheme, nor could he estimate what it would cost. The scheme was an attempt to deal with the situation at a very late stage in the game. Mr Holland’s Views Mr Holland said he had been advised by competent people that if the off-course betting scheme provided for in the bill was properly conducted and operated the amount of gambling might easily be reduced. It had been known for a long time that there had been a growing amount of unlawful betting in New Zealand and the public had expressed the opinion that it should be stopped. Lawful and unlawful bet-

ting was estimated to amount to about £50.000.000 a year. Mr F. Langstone (Independent Labour. Roskill): Nearly £1.000.000 a Mr Holland said it appeared that the law was not strong enough to stop unlawful betting. Parliament could not be blind to the decision of the people at a referendum when two out of every three voted for some undefined scheme of off-course betting. The question was a non-party one. but the responsibility to introduce the bill rested with the Government. The Opposition had considered the bill and was in favour of its being passed as at present drafted. The bill made a valuable safeguard in that the scheme to be submitted by the Racing and Trotting Conferences had to be approved by the Minister of Internal Affairs. Without that safeguard. Mr Holland said, he could not have voted for the bill. Mr Holland said his observations during a recent trip to Australia satisfied him that smaller investments, such as 2s 6d and 5s totalisators, did not attract the younger people. Picnic Meetings “I am pleased to see that the bill is going to remove the condition where a simple sort of thing such as the equilisator used at picnic meetings is administered according to the liver of the local policeman.” continued Mr Holland. “There is a good deal to be said for these small country meetings. I see all around me in the House a lot of people who pay a lot of money for horses and don’t have half as much fun as those who buy a hack for a tenner and race it at a country meeting. “Is it intended to enforce the law against betting at sports meetings?’’ asked Mr Holland. “If not, what is the sense of doubling the penalty. Let us either enforce the law or skip it altogether.” Mr Holland said he welcomed the provision to enable newspapers to publish dividends. This would enable bettors to compare the official totalisator dividend with that paid by the bookmaker. Discussing the provision to permit tipping in the newspapers and over the radio. Mr Holland said he hoped that this would not be done during Sunday morning broadcasts. “If you take the tips of the newspaper people, they are a long way from the mark.” said Mr Holland. Mr W. S. Goosman (Opposition. Piako): There would be no racing if they were always right. “I would like to see the newspapers back their opinions by publishing the result of the race and putting Ihe tips underneath.” added Mr Holland. Safeguards in Bill “It may be said through the country that we are giving a blank cheque. However, there is a safeguard that the scheme of the Conferences has to be approved by the Government, and that Parliament each year will be required to amend the legislation l and will have an annual opportunity of overhauling the legislation and going through the scheme then in force.” Mr Goosman said he agreed with practically everything that the Loader of the Opposition had said. He welcomed the bill, not because he was a big bettor, but because he was firmly of the opinion that there was far too much betting and gambling on racehorses in the Dominion. Unless there vzas some alternative system put before the public, where they could have a legal bet and the law had to be en-

forced. then “lot's forget about lhe scheme.” How many people in Now Zealand know that in most industrial concerns there were canvassers for bets, and how many people knew that there were people in parliament buildings who would take bets? Mr R. Macdonald (Government. Ponsonby): Why tell the people about it? Keep it under your hat. Mr Goosman: There is far too much illegal betting. which has been brought about by the profit system. Government voices: Hear. hear. Mr Goosman: The profit system in betting is bad. Gambling on Credit Mr J. Mathison (Government. Avon): What about the stock exchanges? Mr Goosman: That's all out -in the open, and its legal, and if you go to the stock exchange you pay cash, but there are thousands who gamble on credit. Mr Goosman said he welcomed the bill because it provided a legal scheme for betting, and if the law was enforced it would result in a big reduction in gambling. It would also result in those people who were betting on credit being deprived of the opportunity of betting, and would reduce the number of people who were in debt because of their betting ventures. The position in Australia was not good, and horses had to be kept under guard. Mr A. C. Baxter (Government. Raglan): They nearly had that in Auckland last Saturday. Mr Goosman: That’s a totally different thing. There arc horses in Australia which are backed for large amounts to win, and people are frightened they might be interfered with. Mr Goosman said there was no incentive for people in New Zealand to interfere with or injure a horse so that it could not win. The debate was interrupted by the adjournment al midnight until’lo.3o a.m. to-morrow.