THE GAMING LAW.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 868, 14 July 1910, Page 5

THE GAMING LAW.

BOOKMAKER AND TOTALISATOR. INTERESTING DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT. MR. NEWMAN'S BILL. KILLED BY THE GOVERNMENTIn the House of Representatives yesterday the Prime Minister assured members that they would 1« given an opportunity this session of dealing with the totalisator and tho bookmaker, and of treating them independently. Sir Joseph proceeded to describe the latest amendments to the Gaming .Act as one of the most advanced pieces of anti-gambling law adopted by any country. Those who declaimed most loudly against the clause in it relating to bookmakers know perfectly well that without that clause the Act would -not have been passed. This was perfectly well known to honourable gentlemen, who, while they wautcd the Act, did not want the bookmaker clause. Some were in the position of voting against this clause while praying that tho Bill would go through. Bookmakers' Abolition Bill. In moving the second reading of tho Gaining Amendment and Bookmakers' Abolition Bill, Mr. Newman (Manawatu) said that ho was no enemy to horseracing. On the contrary, he was in favour of the sport, His object in bringing in the Bill was that he wanted to see clean sport. When the clause legalising the bookmaker was introduced it was not known that it would have such evil effects, and he had no doubt that it would now be repealed.. The Bill had not been brought in in any party spirit. He then quoted the remarks recently made on gambling by Mr. Justice Chapman, which had earned the commendation of the people for his courage in condemning the legalising of the bookmaker. I he ex-Commissioner of Police had in one ot his annual reports also referred adverselv to the enactment in question. His successor had also stated that the question should again be reconsidered. When the clause was brought down the Prime Minister clearly thought that the operations of tho bookmaker would be confined to the racecourse. Sir Joseph: All betting. Resuming, Mr. Newman stated that it was now equally evident that the activities of the bookmakers had. never been keener than at present. Who is to Blame? Sir Joseph: And who is to blame? Mr. Newman: The law. Sir Joseph: No, some of the racing clubs. Mr. Massey; That is not so. Mr. Newman stated that betting lists were now being sent all round, the country bv various firms. He read some of these 'lists, which he declared were sent out bv members of lattersall s. It was interesting to note that they were sent in prepaid envelopes, which showed that they were sent out in very largo numbers. ■ Sir Joseph: In open envelopes? Mr. Newman: I understand that some are sent one way and others another. Continuing, Mr. Newman said that he was informed by merchants and others that this system was doing an-immense amount of' harm amo.ig young people. Ono employer had -old him thac in every case of embezzlement of his firm could be attributed to betting with bookmakers. He would not say that there were not good men among the bookmakers, but the calling was a r>'r J nicious one. It was his view that the racin" clubs were not in favour ot. the bookmaker, but even :if. they were they were not disinterested. Mr. Glover: What about the totalisator? "They Will Go Out Together." Mr Newman: It does not give credit nor follow bettors about and threaten them with exposure if they do not pay up in time. There was a strong feeling throughout the Dominion for the abolition of the bookmaker. He hoped that tho House would not bracket the totalisator and the bookmaker together, for that was the bookmaker's game. He believed that the Prime Minister had said that the bookmaker and the totalisator would go together. Sir Joseph Ward: I believe that they will go out together. We will deal with this matter ourselves, and not allow you to deal with it. Tho Primo Minister said that these evils must be dealt with by the Government. A member: We might wait a long time. (Laughter.) The Prime Minister, continuing, said he would give opportunities to the House to vote on the bookmaker and on the totalisator separately this session. Every member knew that tho Government was going to bring down a Gaming Bill, liecause it was in the Speech from the Throne. (Laughter.) Mr. Newman knew that he could not put this Bill on the Statute-book. The Government's Bill was really, to come forward at the first opportunity. Did members know what took place on tho course of the Canterbury Jockey Club before the Gaming Act was passed. Thcro were bookmakers on the. racecourse there before the club had any authority to allow them to go on tho course, and a distinction was made between bookmakers catering for the public in the inner circle of the Canterbury Jockey Club and those in tho outside paddock. Mr. Davey: Is that true, Sir Joseph? The Prime Minister: Yes, it is true. I referred to it in one of my speeches. Mr. Herries (Tauranga): Then it must bo true. (Laughter). Tho Prime Minister said that great reforms were contained, in the Gambling Act of 1907, which was opposed by Mr. Herries. Tho Bill removed betting from tho "tote" shops, streets, and recreation reserves, and the Bill would ■ never liavo been passed that session if it had not allowed the presence of bookmakers on racecourses. Ho was not a betting man or a racing man in any sense of tho word. The country must face the trouble arising from tho" gambling evil, and the House must have an opportunity of deciding the bookmaker and totalisator questions. He would go further and say that the people should have the opportunity of deciding on tho question of the gambling evil, which threatened tho welfare of the youth of this country. A number of men had been admitted as bookmakers by some of the racing clubs who should never have been admitted, and the dubs had then declaimed that the Government was responsible for the licensing of these men. Position of the Post Office. Tfc did wit know nf anything in the i:vw that would enable the Post Office to open letters to see if they contained betting intelligence. lie believed that while they would bo able to minimise the gambling evil as it affected our young people—ivlm wi.ro receiving as much harm from small investments on the totalisator a.i from investments with the bookmaker —they would not be able to stop it altogether in this or any other country. "1 am going," said Sir Joseph Ward, "to vote iigiiinst the retention of the bookmaker, and I am going to vote against the retention of tho totalisator." Mr. Massey: I hope you will vote against the bookmaker on the present liill. Kir Joseph Ward: I shall use my vote, like any other member, according to my own discretion, if tliey removed the bookmaker and retained the totaiisator lie believed that with that monopoly for all claws -they would be on the eve of a more widespread system of betting thuii this country had ever seen before. Debate Should Be Adjourned. He suggested that as this Bill could not be got upon the Statute-book fliov should adjourn the debate and unite to" support tin- Icgislulion whidi tho. Government would bring down. That (hero should bo ii reduction ot tho number of race meetings M> i\ew Zealand was In In- mind beyond qiioMioii. The Raring Conference had done their best to make tiie sport a.- dean as possible. U c thought that no person could have read the recent | strictures of Mr. Justice Clmpnian with-1

out realising that the causes which led to the downfall of young men in this country should be removed as far ai possible. Mr. Davey (Christchurch East) pointed out that the Prime Minister's statements regurding the Canterbury Jockey Club should have referred to a South Canterbury racecourse, as the former speech by Sir Joseph, from which he had quoted, showed. Mr. Massey's Views. Mr. Massey thought that Mr. NeivninH had made a capital speech, which reflected great credit on his constituents. He was sorry,he could not also congratulate the Prime Minister, who hud not come out in the open and declared what he was prepared to do. Sir Joseph had loft the imoression that he intended to kill the Bill. Sir Joseph: Oh, no. Mr. Massey went on to say that he regretted the passing of the clause legalising the bookmaker. If the Government had been honest and sincere they would have placed the clause in an early portion of the Bill, so that it could gee more consideration. The Bill would never have become law it it had been known that it was intended to adopt the clause. He was surprised to hear the Prime Minister say.that such a proposal should have brought down by the Government. Instead of restricting facilities for private members, the Government should increase them, it was quite true that the Government stated in the Speech from the Throne that they intended to introduce gaming legislation, but no details were given. How often had it happened that the Government stated its iuteution to go on with a Bill, but it was never again heard of? Ho would like to ask how often Speeches from tho Throne had promised a Local Government Bill. It was his opinion that in so,rie ways the Act of 1907 had restricted gambling, but the clause legalising bookmakers was 'a disgrace on Parliament. He sincerely trusted that the session would not come to an end until it was deleted. Who May be Licensed. There were some racing clubs, which, prior to tho Act, had decided to refuse to license bookmakers. "Under the .Act, however, the racing clubs were compelled to license bookmakers of good character. Tho Hon. J. A. Millar: Does it compel them to license "wclshers"? Mr. Massey: Well, almost, for a racing club takes a great risk in declaring that a man is not of good.repute. Resuming, Mr. Massey said he was in favour of the reduction in the number of raco meetings. Those who wanted to bracket the tote and the bookmaker were the friends of the bookmakers and the professional gamblers. (No, , No.) Ho would not promise, but he might not vote against the abolition of the-, totalisator, although lie would always vote for the abolition of the bookmaker. Mr. Massey added that all classes were aroused in a desire to have the bookmaker abolished. Mr. Poole: But where do you stand? Mr. Massey. Well, I know where you stand. On one occasion you voted foi the retention of the bookmaker—(laughter)—on the next division you voted against the bookmaker—(further laughter) —and when the third division camp on you wero absent. (Loud laughter.) Other Members' Views. Mr. Hanan (Invercargill) said- he would vote against the Bill simply because it had been made a party question. Mr. Ell (Christchurch South) advised Mr. Newman to endeavour to tack his proposals on to a Government Bill, as a private member's Bill had no chance of getting through the House. Mr. Reed (Bay of Islands) said ha wished to deal with the bookmaker and; (he totalisator at the same time. He moved the adjournment of the debate The amendment to this effect was duly seconded. Mr. Malcolm (Clutlia) urged that he amendment meant shelving the Bill. He supported the Bill because it presented a plain straightforward issue on the question of the bookmaker, and he had thought that every member would havo voted for it. Those who voted against the Bill would be placing themselves on the side of tho bookmaker. ■'."■■' Mr. Buchanan (Wairarapa) pointed out that last session the Government introduced a Land Bill, but they did not follow it up, and it went into the wastepaper basket. The same thing might happen to any other Government Bill. He therefore opposed the adjournment. Mr. E. 11. Taylor (Thames) denied that members who opposed this Bill were in favour of the bookmaker. Mr. Massey: Most certainly you are. Mr. Taylor: I call the statemcnls which had been made to that effect low insinuations. Mr. Taylor had to withdraw this remark. "No Chance." Mr. Poole (Auckland West) said ho. was so much in earnest for reform that: he would vote against tho adjournment.. (Opposition hear, bear's.) He said, however, that tho measure had no chance ofi getting through. Mr.'Massey r That's all right. Vote for the principle. Mr. Poole: 1 am going to vote for the principle. Sir William Steward (Waitaki) opposed the adjournment, and said that he had previously drafted a similar Bill to Mr. Newman's. He hoped that the Government Bill would bo brought down at- an early date, so that there would be no fear of its not getting on to the Statutebook. Mr. Masse}: Will they carry it through. Hough? Sir William Steward: I lake it that they will. He regretted that the Primo Minister had not allowed the House to express its opinion on the principle of this Bill prior to the introduction of the Government measure. , Tho Prime Minister: And make the Government victims of a trick of the Opposition! Sir William Steward said that th< matter had not appeared to liim in that light. Mr. Herdman (Wellington North) asked who was responsible for the adjournment trick. The Government, with theii majority, coiild quash tho Bill, and cvvlently 'it was quite useless for any Opposition member to attempt a reform' by means of a private Bill. The position was becoming extraordinary. It would lie a great evil if a private member was not at liberty, owing to the Government's majority, to introduce a Bill which would institute a reform. Mr. liuiek (PalmerstonJ opposed tha adjournment. Mr. Russell (Avon) said ho would voto against the adjournment, because ho wanted to record his vote against tho bookmaker at the earliest opporl unity. Mr. M'laren (Wellington East) urged that if the Government had introduced the legislation which was the cause of trouble, it was their responsibility to amend it. The present debate was only wasting time. Mr. Sfallworlliy (Ivaipara) supported the adjournment. Mr. Fisher (Wellington Central) pointed out that the Prime Minister had been, responsible for increasing the tax on tho totalisator, and nothing had done so much to entrench the totalisator, because, the revenue obtained from it was now so valuable that the Government would find it very difficult to dispense with it. On private members' days, members should be allowed to get away from tho party machine. He would not vote for the Bill, because lie preferred to deal with both evils together, but he objected to the Government's obstruction. The Prime Minister contended that (here had been no interference with the Bill. Bill Not for Party Purposes. Mr. Massey denied that the Bill had been moved for party purposes. It originated with .Mr. Newman, who waa thoroughly in earnest in his attempt to obtain a reform. Sir William Stcw--ard had pas-vd into law twenty-four private members' Bills. Mr. hirkbride, an Opposiiii.-n member, had Ix-cn able to get an iii'p'H'lant Bill passed during Mr. Seddon's admiiiistration( and ho regret/ ted Unit the s:\iiie treatment was not accorded to yrhato members by this Government as had been alio!(led by previous Governments. If Die Bill was allowed fa pass ils second reading and I he Government Bill was inlrodiiced later, he had no doubt that Mr. Newman would withdraw his measure'in favour of tho Goveminent Bill. The adjournment was carried at 1 a.nv by 37 votes to 21!. The division list was as follows:— ,\ves. ,17.—Arnold, Brown. Buddo. Buxi ton. Carroll, Clark, Colviji, Craigi« Davey, Dillon, El), Field, Forbes, Glover, Graham, Groonsla.de. Hail, Hanan, Ho ran, Hogg, Jennings. LawTy, Macdcuald

M'Laren, Millar, Mvers, Ngata, Polnml, Poole, Hoed, Ross, Seddon, Smith, Stallworthy, E. H. Taylor, J. C. Thomson, Ward, Wilford. Noes, 2(i.—Anderson, Buchanan, Buick, Dive, .r. Duncan, Fisher, Eraser, Guthrie, Hardy, Herdman, Herries, . Lang, Luke, Malcolm, Wander, Massey, Newman, Nosworthv, Okev, Phillipps, Poole, Russell, Steward, G. M. Thomson, Witty, Wright. A formal motion was carried that the debate he resumed' in four weeks' time, tnd the House rose.

MINISTERS' ASSOCIATION'S PROTEST.

The Rev. J. Kennedy Elliott presided >t a meeting of the Wellington Ministers' Association held yesterday. The following resolutions were passed:— "The .Wellington Ministers' Association expresses its intense satisfaction at the attitude of the press in connection with the bookmakers "scandal and to the movement made by commercial men, and asks the earnest, co-operation of the Christian Churches in the same. The Wellington Ministers' Association believes that the. present opportunity for smiting the gambling evil is one of tho greatest yet presented to the community, and urges on all those who love clean cities and who care for public morals to join the national deputation on Moudoy licxt to urge— (1) A national referendum on the totalisator. (2) The cancellation by the Parliament of the license granted to the bookmakers. The association also believes that the law should be strengthened in regard to street betting, so that the suppression of the bookmakers may be final."