GAMING COMMISSION

Evening Star, Issue 26042, 5 March 1947, Page 8

GAMING COMMISSION

Sittings May Take Several

Months

First Evidence for Racing Conference

Bookmaking Discussed

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, March 4. The sittings of the Gaming Commission, which were resumed today, are likely to last for several months, and the evidence taken will probably compare in volume with that heard by the Licensing Commission. Sittings have already been arranged at New Plymouth, Auckland, Napier,' Christchurch, Dunedin, and Invercargill in that order, but it is possible that further fixtures may be made. The commissioners are Mr Justice Finlay (chairman), Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., and Mr J. W. Heenan, ‘ Under-Secretary of Internal Affairs. ' Mr W. M. Bolt, of the Internal Affairs ! Department, is secretary. ‘ Counsel for the various interested 1 parties are Dr 0. C. Mazengarb and ' Mr J. R. Marshall _for the asso- ' ciated Churches, comprising the Pres- , byterian, Methodist, Baptist, Congre- ‘ gational, Church of Christ, Salvation Army, and! Society of Friends; Mr W. E. Leicester and Mr T. P. McCarthy, • for the Dominion Sportsmen’s Association; Mr A. T. Donnelly, Mr E. D. Blundell and Mr H. R. C Wild, for ' the New Zealand Racing Conference; :; . Mr G. S. Thomas and! Mr E. A. Lee, for the New Zealand Trotting Conference.

Not everyone went to the races to bet, but all shared in the amenities. About £86,000 was retained last year in unpaid fractions—which it was physically impossible to handle—by the 240 racing and 80 trotting clubs. It went back to the people in amenities and facilities. RACE RESULTS FROM BOOKMAKERS.

To Mr W. E. Leicester, counsel for the Dominion Sportsmen’s Association, Mr Chalmers said that New Zealand racing was more free from corruption than racing in other countries. The conference approved of the principle of legalising off-the-course betting. Mr Leicester: The conference‘has no practical scheme?—l am not prepared to tell you. We have not got. down to details. Mr Leicester: Has the conference considered the scheme from the bookmakers?—We do not recognise them. To Mr Leicester’s questions concerning the broadcasting services securing race results, Mr Chalmers said:.“ We have been told so, and were surprised to hear it. It is an absurd position for a Government which declares bookmaking illegal to secure race results from bookmakers through one of its departments, and through another to provide telephones to the course . for bookmakers to get such results.”

PRELIMINARY. An unsuccessful attempt to have the commission provide him with a copy , of the submissions to he presented at . the inquiry by the Dominion Sportsmen’s Association was made by Dr O. C. Mazengarb, on behalf of the Associated! Churches. Dr Mazengarb said his clients felt they could not make submissions until they knew what the other submissions were, and the Dominion Sportsmen’s Association had declined to supply them with a . . copy. If the case to be presented by the association had been a good one, Dr Mazengarb continued, one would have thought it would stand examination. and he was placed' in the position . of asking the commission to supply a copy. Mr Justice Finlay , said this could not • he done. He understood the submissions were not official, and were j.‘privileged documents until Mr W. E. Leicester (for the association) pre-

sented his case. The commission would give Dr Mazengarb every opportunity to answer them. Mr Leicester then told the coni.mission he had sent a. letter to Dr Mazengarb replying to his request as ■ follows:—“In view of your opening ; statement to the commission that the Associated Churches will resist any ' attempt to make legal those methods of gambling that are at present illegal, my client association realises that any criticism of its case cannot be other than wholly destructive in . such circumstances, and as the future . of its members is so much at stake, it feels that it is not called on to supply a’. copy unless directed by the commission so to do. It may assist you •.to know, however, that the association i does not seek’to have legalised the type of establishment common to South Australia, and known as the “ betting shop,” nor to legalise the right of the bookmaker to operate on. the course. RACING CONFERENCE PRESI-

DENT. Mr H. it. Chalmers, president of the New Zealand Racing Conference, in evidence, said that about 3,000 horses were in training, and in the 1945-46 season the stakes worked out at £240 a horse. A .horse could not be trained and travelled now. under £SOO a year. He was inclined to think it was not a good thing to have too much Saturday racing, and so take money out of the workers’ pockets each week. More mid-week racing might. be better for the community, though not for the clubs.

Mr Chalmers said the 20 one-day totalisator permits sought were not intended for 'immediate allocation, but tlie number was a limit, so that when extra days were needed continual legislative alterations would not be required. The totalisator turnover had risen from £5,802,874 in 1938-39 to £14,334,708 in 1945-46. To Mr S. Thomas, counsel for the New Zealand Trotting Conference, Mr Chalmers said that trotting breeding was increasing and improving. The racing clubs paid £94,096 income tax, , £9,912 social security tax, and £14,869 national security tax in 1945-46. In his opinion no racing club in New Zealand compiled its balance sheet properly, because it did not take into • account its liability for stakes. He would not say it was alarming that betting had increased threefold in a ■ few years, or on the other hand that it was wrong. People had much more money now. He thought it was the job of the clubs to provide the facilities the public demanded. Betting was not harmful if a man lived within his-means. ■ Dr Mazengarb: It. is too wide a definition for me. , „ . . Mr Chalmers: It is the definition a •reasonable man would take. Mr Chalmers said that whether or _ not betting was of , itself wrongful was a matter of degree. As for lotteries, ho would not express an opinion, as . this was not his concern. He did not know that lotteries were illegal. Conference did not come to the commission to ask for more betting facilities, but rather having in mind the public demand to ensure that any extension should be through the right channels. Dr Mazengarb: Are not the facilities which permit an , annual totalisator turnover of nearly £15.000,000 sufficient, and would not an increase result in more betting? Mr Chalmers: 1 think some districts are entitled, to more permits. Any additional ones granted /would go to small clubs and not large ones. Betting, he continued, would increase while money was about, but it would come down if money tightened.

Witness said he did not know of this until the matter was raised in Parliament. The conference did not approve that a man should be licensed because he could not be controlled. “As long as there are bookmakers there will be a tendency for a man whose ‘ hook ■’ was tending to look bad to offer inducements to jockeys or the connections of horses not to win or to do the same with owners to get them to leave a horse in a race, knowing it would not start. You will never find the totalisator offering £IOO to a jockey not to win or going to a factory and asking workers to put £1 on a horse.” Mr Leicester:' Have not owners also offered inducements to jockeys not to win?—l would not say that has not happened. BOOKMAKING ACCEPTABLE UNDER NO SYSTEM. Mr Chalmers said he knew that off-the-course betting was legal in England, and that bookmakers operated on the courses, hut the stakes there were lower and Owners had to put more in as nomination and acceptance fees. He was told there were 27 bookmakers in Wanganui and 23 in Stratford. Could it be imagined that even if bookmakers were legalised even 10 would be allowed in a town like Wanganui ? He did not think any system of licensing would remove the objections to book-

makers. “I would not say that all bookmakers are corrupters of the turf,” Mr Chalmers said, “ but there would always be a tendency to protect themselves from loss.”

Mr Leicester: Some have been operating legally and illegally for 40 years, and still retain the trust of their clients?—l don’t know, but I have heard many complaints. DO OWNERS BET WITH BOOKMAKERS? To Mr Leicester, Mr Chalmers said the conference had not considered the' details of running a doubles’ totalisator. ,It had operated along with telegraph betting previously. About 1907 he recalled a man in Hawera winning £2,000 on the New Zealand Cup ana Stewards double. He knew that the Post Offices were closed on Saturday afternoons, but was informed that the Post Office was out for business, and there would be no difficulty about staff. The conference did not envisage post officers handling bets, and he was not prepared to say what was in mind because the details had not been discussed.

Mr Leicester: My clients say. that at least 75 per cent, of the owners bet with bookmakers. What . would your comment be? —I would be very surprised. Some do, but others do not. Mr Chalmers said he knew that owners betting with bookmakers were guilty of corrupt practice, but it was hard to get proof. If the conference got any information of this it would take action.