GAMING AMENDMENT BILL

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 263, 2 August 1929, Page 8

GAMING AMENDMENT BILL

“A RETROGRADE MEASURE” CHURCHES’ DEPUTATION TO PRIME MINISTER CABINET ATTITUDE NOT YET DEFINED Cabinet has not yet considered the attitude to be adopted by the Government towards the Gaming Amendment Bill, which has been introduced into the House of Representatives by the member for Waipawa (Sir George Hunter). This announcement was made yesterday by the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph Ward) when replying to a deputation from the Wellington Ministers' Association. The deputation was introduced by Mr. W. E. Carpenter, president of the Wellington Ministers’ Association. The Rev. F. E. Harry said they approached the Prime Minister with some measure of confidence, realising that he had no sympathy with the spread of the gambling habit in the Dominion. “You have,” said Mr. Harry, “throughout your public life, recognised that the whole fabric of our social life rests upon the determination to be honest with one another. Straight-forwardness, integrity, and mutual respect constitute our social duty. It is admitted that there is no greater disintegrating force in society than that meanest of passions—gambling. The man who is out after money without earning it, should be watched, for he is a social menace, so selfish in his ideals that he is on the high road to beggary or embezzlement. Some time ago a well-known Auckland Magistrate read out in court a list of postal officials, telegraphists, clerks, policemen, and other public servants —men who were above the average physically and mentally-—-who had been convicted of various crimes through betting. Such cases in recent years he asserted, had averaged about one a day. This ‘mug’s game’ of betti- g is so utterly childish that one marvels how intelligent men practise it. It is a sorry wastage of economic resources, it poisons sport, it disturbs home life, and its effect upon personal character is that of rapid deterioration. “A Retrograde Measure.” “During the past few weeks,” said Mr. Harry, “the racing clubs, through their agent, the Sports’ Protection League, have presented Parliament with petitions containing the names of a few thousand people who want the House to pass Sir George Hunter’s Gamine- Amendment Bill. We represent-, the Churches of the Dominion. We have sent in no formal petition to the Legislature, but we make bold to say that every member has received an urgent protest against this retrograde measure from scores of his constituents. In many cases whole-con-gregations at their Sunday services have stood to signify their detestation of this proposal. It Is no exaggeration to say that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this Dominion diametrically opposed to the passing of this measure. As Churches, we desire to express our astonishment that a member of your Ministry has deemed it wise to speak repeatedly of this measure as likely to reach the statute books; in fact, his advocacy among racing clubs has created a spirit of strong resentment in the minds of thousands of earnest people. We feel sure that he had not the Prime Minister and the Cabinet behind him in his unwise assertions and propaganda.

Telegraphing of Bets. “May we, Sir Joseph, congratulate you upon the stand you have always taken in this matter," continued the speaker. “Two years ago, when the Gaming Amendment Bill was before the Hou-e, you spoke in the most explicit and determined way against it, referring to the fact that, whilst you were in charge of the Post and Telegraph Department, you had seen so much mischief wrought through the telegraphing of bets, that you could never vote for such a wise restriction as that now existing to be removed. Now that there are more race days, and the totalisator is in greater use than ever, we believe that your opposition will be the more determined. The Telegraph Department is a great public utility and it belongs to all of us. We have, therefore, a perfect right to ask that what belongs to the whole community should not be exploited by one section of the people for entirely selfish ends. We regard it as a piece of absolute and unwarrantable impudence for the racing clubs to ask that the Telegraph Department should be used to foster a national vice in order that their coffers may be filled. We have over 300 race days in the year—more than England has with thirty times the population. The promoters of this Bill think that the public will pay anything for the privilege of betting. Already the totalisator takes 2s. lid. out of every pound invested on it, and the racing clubs want the public to spend another two shillings at least, in a money-order wire, without any guarantee that, it will be delivered in time to be of any use. And you yourself know, from what you have told us, of the frauds to which young people are tempted in the Department itself. It is truly a diabolical proposal that our splendid Telegraph Department should be made an agent of the totalisator. Other Evils. "Apart from this aspect of the case, there are other evils likely to arise,” said Mr. Harry. “A wire might arrive on the course just after a horse had lost. They tell us that the money will be refunded ; but it won’t be difficult for someone to find tickets on a losing horse. No one trusts a gambler, or anyone connected with this pernicious business. We know, of course, that the promoters of this Bill argue that, by it, the bookmaker will be eliminated; but anybody with any knowledge of human nature knows that that is utter rubbish. It will create a bookmaker in every workshop, factory and office —for no one in his senses imagines that a boy or a man will go to the expense and uncertainty of a moneyorder wire to a racecourse when he can bet with a bookmaker near at hand. At the present time, the Gaming Act prohibits anyone under twenty-one investing in the totalisator, but if it becomes lawful to telegraph bets to racecourses how can a racing club official tell whether a wire has come from a man of 60 or a boy of 16? As churches attempting to safeguard the morals of the community, we marvel that there are any politicians so morally obtuse as to advocate this measure. We feel that the removal of the restrictions already existing will cause trouble in homes, embezzlements in post offices, and mischief everywhere. The only people likely to benefit are the racing clubs, whose only craving is for more money, even if the cost be the degradation of the nation. We speak strongly because we feel strongly on this vital issue. “A Silly Jibe.” “It is said that, in this respect, the Churches are in unholy association with bookmakers, but a little bit of coniiimn sense on the part of our accusers would

show how silly this jibe is, for the supporters of this Bill are out to increase gambling through the totalisator. That is their sole purpose. Were the bookmakers, who are well known to the authorities, gaoled without the option of a fine, and their client? prosecuted (as they were in Christchurch), they would be more speedily got rid of. • We are out against gambling in every form, and we consider that this Bill, if passed, will not only largely increase the habit (which is what the racing clubs desire) but also produce a serious crop oi crimes. , . . , r “There is oue thing, concluded Mr. Harry, “that we ask you to do, knowing that we have your sympathy. The Order Paper is in your hands. This is a private member’s Bill, calculated to benefit a few anJ injure many. We ask that you will strictly limit the time for its discussion, say, to half an hour or half a day. Members are not sent to the House to remove wise restrictions to existing Acts, but to promote the wellbeing of the people. The restrictions to the Gaming Act were placed there by wise men. They have worked satisfactorily, and it is only greed which prompts their removal; and we ask you, Sir to exercise your authority and show that the Racing Conference does not govern N ew Zealand.” "A Fatal Facility.”

Rev- J. R. Blanchard, representing the Presbyterian Church, said they were strongly of the conviction that gambling was wrong in principle and practice, both morally and economically. The fatal facility which gambling had for going from bad to worse was implicitly recognised in the legislation which governed it Such legislation should aim rather at curbing the ramifications of gambling than at giving it wider facilities. The promoters of the Bill claimed that the proposed amendments would make gamming less of an evil than it was at present, but they were convinced that the Bill would make gambling a greater evil than it was at present. The promoters of the measure were quite frank in admitting that the publication of dividends would encourage people to increase their betting operations on the totalisator and that it would draw money away from the bookmakers. The deputation claimed that totalisator investments would increase with the publication of dividends, but it was also held that the receipts of bookmakers would not decrease at all. There was an old saying that one could always get money for “booze and betting,” but the question was, where was the money to come from? They submitted that it would be the small tradesman who would suffer. People would go any lengths to get money for gambling, and the door would be thrown open for embezzlement. New Zealand gaming legislation was far ahead of that of any other country, and they should hesitate before they took what would be undoubtedly a retrograde step.

Prime Minister’s Reply. The Prime Minister, in replying, said that the matter was a very important one. He was pleased to have the views of the deputation and would place them before his colleagues, and the Government would decide upon the attitude it would adopt in connection with the Gaming Bill. He recognised that the matter was one of very far-reaching importance, and he recognised there was a very strong movement to amend the law. “Cabinet has not yet considered the matter,” added Sir Joseph. “We are waiting for developments, and those developments are showing themselves in the House at the present time. Before the Bill is dealt with in the House the representations made by the various parties will be most carefully considered.” The Prime Minister said he did not know what the feeling of the House was in connection with the Bill, but so far as the Government was concerned its attitude would be stated in the "House at the proper time. The question was a very ticklish one. He had had representations made to him from all sections of the community, and so far he had not committed himself one way or the other.