GAMING AMENDMENT BILL

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 September 1934, Page 2

GAMING AMENDMENT BILL

ANOTHER EFFORT MADE. [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON. September 5. In the Legislative Council, moving the second reading of the Gaming Amendment Bill providing for double totalisator and publication of dividends, Mr Davis said that at present people were forced to make double investments through illegal channels. Patrons of the racecourse attended voluntarily. There was no obligation to bet. Gambling was a national instinct, and if a single totalisator was allowed, it was only just and proper a double totalisator should be placed on the same plane. The racecourse played a big part in the social life of the country, and it was estimated there were 10,000 people dependent on the racing industry. From the season 1918-19 to 1933-3-1, the totalisator and dividend tax amounted to £7,949,325, and it was estimated the amount would have been increased by at least 50 per cent if the money had been kept in the legal channels of the totalisator. During the last four years, the net. losses of the racing and trotting clubs of the Dominion amounted to £104,774. There bad been a drop of 47.3 per cent, in the amount of stakes paid last year, as compared with 1925-26. That reduction had meant that racehorse owners had suffered materially. There had been great inducement to send horses to Australia where there were over 100 New Zealand horses at the present time. The cost of keeping those horses in the Commonwealth was approximately £35,000 yearly. The racing clubs relied on the totalisator for a great deal of their revenue, and if that was not increased horses would continue to be sent to Australia where better stakes were offering. “I cannot for the life of me see why publication of dividends was ever prohibited,” said Mr Davis, who added that newspapers were compelled to indicate the nature of dividends by all sorts of means. Furthermore the dividend could always be obtained 10 minutes after the race from a bookmaker. It was sheer hyprocrisy, humbug and cant to prohibit the publication of dividends, and it was time the State abandoned the Puritanical outlook. Several members supported the Bill. Mr Isitt opposed the Bill, which was read a second time without a division.