TOTE v. BOOKMAKER

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 August 1929, Page 5

TOTE v. BOOKMAKER

I GAMING ACT AMENDMENTS

KEEN DEBATE IN HOUSE

(Special to “Star.”)

WELLINGTON, August 27. A preliminary discussion on tilie Gaming Amendment Bill took place in the .House to-day, when the M to Z Public Petitions Committee recommended that the numerous petitions on the subject should be referred to the Government for favourable consideration. '

The Bill refers to telegraphing bets to a racecourse, and the publication of dividends.

Mr Armstrong said he was surprised at the report of the Committee, and hoped the Committee did not have in its mind the proposals That had already been submitted to the House. They did not want every post office in the country turned into an agency for the totalisator. He was by no means a kill joy, but if they could not continue racing and trotting simply for the sport of the thing, then they would be better without it. If the racing people approached the House with a request for a reduction in taxation or for something they could reasonably expect to get they might be doing something of benefit to the sport. He warned the Government that if the Bill came before the House it would get the roughest passage that any Bill had ever received.

Sir George Hunter expressed pleasure at the recommendation which he said was equitable and fair. He had been much impressed with the evidence of two representatives of an Auckland Labour organisation who gave most valuable evidence on behalf of the working people of New Zealand in support of the Gaming Amendment Bill before the House. They had said they believed they were expressing the , VIEWS OF LABOUR organisations of the Dominion. Mr Langstone said he was certain that the Committqb had not given the matter the consideration it deserved. If the Bill were allowed to go through, all other telegraph business would have to give way to racing business, and that would (happen on every day of the week. “The racing people control the trains, they control the police, and everything else to protect their own particular interests, and now they want to monopolise our post offices,” said Mr Langstone. The post offices would be the nerve centre of the racing system and everybody in the post offices would be contaminated. The effect would be felt in every office, shop, and factory in the country. They saw race cards and double charts in those places now, and the position would be worse if the proposals became law. He thought the whole racing business iliouTd be investigated. Mr Langstone moved that the report should be referred back to the Committee.

Mr Carr seconded the amendment, and said he believed that all members of the Committee had not had an opportunity of being present in order to register their opinions. lie was no spoil sport, but lie objected to undue facilities being granted for the extension of betting ,especially through the agency of a Government Department. Mr Carr said the churches were almost unanimously against the proposals in the Bijl.Mr Dye, a member of the Committee, said that its decision was not unanimous. No evidence had been tendered from the churches or the post offices. Tt had come chiefly from well-known racing men. He was opposed absolutely and definitely to the use of the post office, the finest State institution we have had, for transmitting bets to the course. There were ample facilities for betting already. He had no objection to the publication of dividends, because people on the racecourse could see the dividend as soon as the race was over.

Mr Lysnar congratulated the Committee on its report, and hoped that the Government would take some notice of it. There/ was a large percentage of people

BETTING ILLEGALLY TO-DAY,

and it was time Parliament took some steps to meet the position. Surely it was better to use the post office for betting than to use the street. It was characteristic of British people to back their opinions with their money, and it had to be regulated and legalised. The present system was entirely wrong. If the ministers of the churches of the Dominion understood nature and what was happening they would be the first to come forward and ask the House to do its duty. Mr Dickie said that if the majority of people opposed the Bill, why was it that practically no evidence had been submitted against the Bill. The bookmakers were already using the post office all day when there were race meetings. He did not think the volume of betting would be increased by giving facilities for telegraphic betting. The totalisator did not canvass for bets. Mr Makitanara said the Committee had fully considered the case on its merits. What had been aimed at was the regulation of betting, anil not an increase or decrease in the facilities for gambling. They could not legislate against betting, for it was inherent in the nature of the people. Mr Wright: What about the Native race?

Mr Makitanara: Never mTnd about them. I’m talking about your race. There had been horse-racing 800 years before Christ.

Mr Makitanara added it was not the duty of the churches to pass resolutions against gambling, but to look after the spiritual needs of their people. As the House knows, I am a sponsor for the bookmakers, said Mr Makitanara. I hold no brief for them,, but I hope to regulate them and direct them along legal channels. Mr Samuel took exception to the statement that it had not given sufficient consideration to the petitions. The evidence had been very carefully studied, and an opportunity had been given to approach the subject from every angle. The Committee did its work faithfully and well according to the petitions submitted, and their report should be given effect to. Members should face their responsibilities and not refer the report back to the Committee.

Mr H. E. Holland took strong ex-

ception to the statement that the Labour Party was committed to opposition to the measure. The Labour Party did not make the subject a party one. He also deprecated the suggestion that his Party was opposing the report because it stood for the bookmakers. It had no basis of fact.

The report and the amendment that it be referred back was talked out by the 5.30 p.m. adjournment.