ATTACK ON THE TOTALISATOR.

Evening Star, Issue 7614, 17 May 1888, Page 2

ATTACK ON THE TOTALISATOR.

INTERESTING DEBATE IN THE HOUSE.

[From Our Parliamentary Reporter.]

WELLINGTON, May 10,

For some time past it has been expected that an attack on the totalisator would be made by its opponents, and this was brought about rather unexpectedly this afternoon, when the House by a substantial majority affirmed that the machine should be continued, though there was a general expression of opinion that the jockey clubs, in charging 10 per cent, on investments, were being paid an excessive amount. Mr Bketham, in moving “That in the opinion of this House it Is desirable that the Government should introduce a measure during the present session providing that a proportion of the earnings of the totalisator and of theatrical companies should be by Act appropriated for the purposes of hospitals and charitable aid,” said that in Paris, where the totalisator was used, 2 per cent, was collected for charitable aid purposes. Seeing that L 500.000 was annually put through the machines in New Zealand, a similar tax would produce over LIO,OOO. Mr Goldie would have preferred seeing the totalisators abolished altogether ; but as that was not contemplated, he saw no reason why the State should not derive a revenue from them. He also opposed the latter part of the motion, and mentioned that despite the talk of dull times the Amy Sherwin company took overLl,ooo in Auckland in ten nights. Mr Fish was of opinion that Parliament had made a grave error in sanctioning the totalisator, inasmuch as it legalised one of the worst forms of gambling. Ten per cent, was too much to charge for investments, and he thought that the State should get half of that. Colonel Fraser supported the motion so far as taxing the totalisator went; but he had no sympathy with the proposal to tax theatrical performances. For every company that was successful in the colony there were ten failures, and he would not like to be a party to stopping theatricals from coming to our shores. The Government should aid the metropolitan racing clubs in devising some means for restricting the use of the totalisator. Racing was becoming a nuisance to the country, and, though a sporting man himself, he admitted that the totalisator was the agency ol getting up race meetings in the interests of the publicans. Mr Lance said that experience had proved that 10 per cent, was too great a profit for working the machines. The city clubs only allowed I per cent, now to those looking after the totalisators, the rest going to the clubs for stakes, etc.

Mr Samdel believed that the totalisators did good, in comparison with the former habit of betting with bookmakers, and that there was less danger of the uninitiated being “ had.” Mr Fulton would be glad to test the feeling of the House on the matter, and therefore moved as an amendment—“ That the totalisator be abolished.” He claimed the votes of all opponents of the totalisator, and those who thought that any form of betting was to be deprecated. While the totalisator hud decreased the number of bookmakers, it had also encouraged an immense amount of gambling on the part of young men, often leading to their run. Police statistics of late years showed that a number of young men were being constantly apprehended for embezzlement, and he thought that the two things had some connection with each other. Mr Withy seconded the amendment. A fortnight ago he had presided at a public meeting in Auckland to protest against gambling in any form, and lie shortly expected a large petition asking for the abolition of the totalisator. As gambling by the totalisator bad been legalised, young men had been induced to gamble in that way, believing that it was respectable. Mr Hutchison thought that the House would stultify itself if it accepted either motion or amendment. Those members who had been talking of the evils of the totalisator had been speaking on hearsay. As a matter of fact, it had abolished the worst species of gambling—viz,, secret gambling. Dr Newman thought that the totalisator had done good in reducing that objectionable race called bookmakers, but it had also tended to vastly increase the number of race meetings held in the colony. Efforts to limit these meetings had failed, and the only way to put a stop to them was to do away with the totalisator. Dr Fitchett quite recognised that the totalisator had been a great source of evil in propagating race meetings ; but lie failed to see that its abolition was the best method of checking speculation. It had taken the place of secret i ambling and gambling on credit. Gambling was a matter of instinct that could not be stamped out by legislation ; and if men would gamble, the totalisator was the fairest form of gambling, as gambling by this means was spread over so wide an area that the evil was minimise:!.

Mr Carroll could not see any great harm in the totalisator, which had already been legalised ; but he strongly supported the proposal to tax it. He also wished to see it brought more under police control. Consultations, too, ought to be allowed, and a revenue derived from them. He reminded the House that the metropolitan racing clubs were now taking steps to limit the use of the totalisators. They all acknowledged that drinking, like the totalisator, was an evil. Then why did they not do away with public-houses ? Mr Hobbs said it seemed to him that some of the opposition of the totalisators was due to tlie fact that so many country meetings interfered with the success of the city clubs. He should support the amendment, but regretted that the Government had not led the House in this matter.

Mr Blake said that on the strength of the totalisator | being legalised several small country clubs had Improved their racecourses. If the House carried the amendment these clubs should be allowed to retain the use of the machines for three or four years till they were recouped in good faith. Mr Kerr denied that there was any foul play at country gatherings, and said that swindling was done in the centres. He defended the totalisator, and hoped that the House would not be led away by the speeches ot a few members who did not attend race meetings. Mr Fish rose again for the purpose of saying that he conic} not support the amendment, though he liad a good deal of sympathy with it. The totalisator had been legalised by Parliament, and qnder the belief that it would not be summarily assailed. Some clubs had incurred liabilities which they would not otherwise have done. He denied that if the totalisator were suppressed racing in the colony would succumb. What he objected to was that people were charged 10 per cent, for the privilege of losing their money. The totalisator was an existing fact, anc] considerable in justice would be done by its abolition. Mr Allen felt himself on the horns of a dilemma, and did not like either the motion or the amendment, because it was merely shuffling with the difficulty. If theatrical tickets were to bo taxed, so ought quack doctors, oheap jacks, double-headed men and women, and other monstrosities. He objected to the amendment because it would not do that which It was supposed to do. Gambling and betting would not be got rid of. Many preferred the totalisator to reverting to the old system. Fully to deal with speculation was to cope with the whole difficulty of gambling, He did not believe in taxing what he thought to bo a wrong thing for the benefit of charitable institutions.

\)c Hodgkinson said that although it was quite true that gambling would always exist, yet it was neither true nor right that they should encourage it. It was clear that the Government by sanctioning the use of the totalisator were legalising gambling and encouraging it. Mr Beetham could not congratulate the member for Taieri for drawing a red herring across the scent on this occasion, and he would have preferred having seen a distinct motion tabled for the abolition of the totalisator, which was gambling done by the light of day. This would not mean the abolition of gambling as a whole. Mr Fulton’s proposal was that theatrical enter-

tainments, including monstrosities, should be taxed. Mr Lkvestam believed that as much good was to be derived from the stage as from the church. That being so, he could not be a party to imposing a tax on theatrical companies. Mr O’Gonor strongly supported taxing the totalisator and theatrical companies also for the benefit of charitable aid. He believed, however, that the totalisator had given the country people the excitement they required at their own doors; therefore he opposed its abolition. Mr Dodson was of opinion that the totalisator had accomplished a good end by crippling the bookmakers, and he would like to see the machine continued till the bookmakers were killed out of the land. On a division the amendment abolishing totalisators was 10-t by 45 to 21. The following was the division list: — For abolishing the totalisator : Messrs Bruce, Buxton, Cowan, Fulton, Goldie, Hamlin, Hobbs, Hodgkinson, Joyce, Mackenzie (Clutha), Marchant, Mactrtegor, Mitcbolson, Monk, Moss, Newman, Peacock, Rosa, Taylor, Thompson (Auckland North), Withy. Against: Messrs Allen, Ballaucc, Barron, Beetham, Blake, Cadman, Carrol], Dodgson, Duncan, Feldwick, Fisher, Fish, Fitchett, Fraser, Graham, Hutchison, Izard, Jackson, Jones, Kelly, Kerr, Lance, Lawry, Levestam, Longhrey, Mills, O'Callaghan, O’Conor, Ormond, Pearson, Percivai, Reeves (I angahna). Rhodes, Richardson (Kaiapoi), Riohaidson (Mataura), Samuel, Smith, Steward, Stewart, Mentcath, Taiwhanga, Tanner, Thompson (Marsetu), Valentine, Walker. * Mr Feldwick moved, as a further amendment, that a tax on theatrical companies be omitted, and this Mr Beetham accepted, if the Government would agree to bring in a Bill to deal with the question. Mr Hutchison said that it would be a lamentable spectacle if charitable aid was to be dependent on the success or otherwise of a race meeting. The words “ theatrical companies ” were struck out on the voices, and on the question as amended being put, Mr Taylor rose, apparently with the express object of talking out debate, which he succeeded in doing, as the 5.30 adjournment was reached shortly afterwards.