Petition For Betting On Dogs Fails

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31123, 28 July 1966, Page 3

Petition For Betting On Dogs Fails

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, July 27. Enough gambling opportunities existed at present for the New Zealand public and no further encouragement should be given, Parliament was told today,

The Petitions Committee had no recommendation to make on a petition by the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association and 3280 others of Auckland.

Petitioners sought the right to conduct betting on association race tracks. The committee said there; were enough gambling opportunities available to the pun-; lie at present, and no further encouragement should be [ given, reported Mr G. G. Grieve (Govt., Awarua). The committee considered both the totalisator and equalisator schemes for the association. Mr Grieve said the committee believed the totalisator system was impracticable as far as dog racing was concerned at present, mainly because of the cost involved. £5OO a Day The committee had been told it would cost at least £5OO a day to hire a mobile totalisator, Mr Grieve said. This would mean at least

£30,000 would have to go through the totalisator for t the association to break even, I and the sport was not as t popular as it had been in I previous years. / The same conclusion was | 1 reached with the equalisator, [ a system which Mr Grieve ; described as purely "guess I < work.” Ten per cent would [t be deducted for the sporting 'i body operating the meeting,:; and there would be no Gov-j ernment revenue. < There should not be further i i ’encouragement of gambling.j, [said Mr Grieve. Presented Petition Dr. A. M. Finlay (Opp., Waitakere), who presented the petition to the House. ' said petitioners had ap- ' proached him some time ago [ to learn the Government’s ’ attitude towards a totalisator at dog race meetings. Dr. Finlay said he was unable to answer their question but suggested one way to find out was by presenting a petition. This would also serve 'as a vehicle for testing pub- [ lie opinion on the subject. 1 There had been no public ! protest, and the Government’s iview was now known.

Comment ing on the opinion i that the proposals were impracticable, Dr. Finlay said that even if he believed this, he would still think the association should have a chance ■, to try out its plans. He suggested one more 1 avenue was open to the association. The Government through the Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Seath) might agree to approve an equalisator for individual meetings—on the assumption, under the Gaming Act of 1908, that this would be an application for a raffle. Cumbersome Method Such a procedure would be cumbersome, but it would enable the association to prove its own case. If it were able to succeed, the association might approach the House once more. Mr W. W. Freer (Opp., ML Albert) said that if petiItioners felt it economic to operate a totalisator, it was feasible for the Government to encourage them to do so. All too frequently in the House there had been occasions when departmental people recommended one

course of action as the only step feasible. The Government was no longer opposed to establishment of betting facilities as a matter of principle, Mr Freer said. Rather, it was now down to the economics of operating a totalisator, and petitioners should closely | examine this point. Mr Freer, speaking as ai patron of the Auckland club! for some years, said it catered for the whole family,! and he had been impressed! by the large number of| families who watched the dog races. Mr D. S. Thomson (Govt., Stratford) said no evidence on the Government’s attitude had come before the committee. Drawing The Line He said that as far as he was concerned, the question was one of sufficient gambling facilities at present. He referred to the Royal Commission’s unanimous decision in 1946 that horse racing and trotting provided sufficient gambling for the Dominion. ! If betting on dogs was : allowed, where would the line

be drawn, asked Mr Thomson. Earlier in the discussion. Mr R. Macdonald (Opp., Grey! Lynn) said there had been | some disagreement in committee on the equalisator. A departmental officer who > once operated an equalisator' had given the committee valuable information. The committee was told it would not be difficult to get* 'competent staff to conduct ’betting facilities if dog races [did not conflict with horse! | racing and trotting dates. | Petitioners maintained, strengthening of the sport t would mean better dogs and! consequently greater export | opportunities. “Excellent Evidence” Mr N. J. King (Opp., Waitemata) referred to the petitioners’ excellent evidence, and suggested the petition could have been presented to the House for consideration and investigation. The association had envisaged only seven courses throughout the country, he said. The Petitions Committee’s [report was accepted by the ! House.