GAMING AMENDMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 October 1934, Page 7

GAMING AMENDMENT

BILL TALKED OUT VARIETY OF OPINIONS [per press association.] WELLINGTON, October 11. In the House, this afternoon, in moving the second reading of the Gaming Amendment Bill, Mr. Murdoch said the Bill had passed in another place. The idea of bringing it forward was to help the sporting community in the first place, the racing clubs in the second, and the Government in the third. The Government revenue from racing from 1918 to 1932 was £7,900,000. In 1923, taxation received by the Government was £348,-

935, whereas in 1926 it was £634,493. The revenue had shown a considerable drop which was a serious thing to the Government. Racing clubs also had been afflicted with the result that many horses were being sent to Australia. The Bill proposed to legalise the double totalisator, and allow the publication of dividends. Mr. Parry said the Bill fell short of bringing about a solution of the question that had been a vexed one for 25 years. He believed that racing should be cleansed and brought into the open. He knew many of the men most prominent in racing circles held the same views as he did. He quoted what was done in South Australia, where betting was strictly controlled, and bookmakers were legalised. Mr. Langstone said that if the racing clubs thought they would receive benefit from the Bill, it showed only their ignorance. Pooling and centralisation were the only methods by which racing clubs could get themselves out of the difficulties. Mrs McCombs asked what was the position in the country. People behind the Bill held that they could hold up the business of the country so that an attempt could be made to increase gambling. The time of the House should not be wasted by legislation which was worse than frivolous. Mr. Stallworthy thought it could reasonably be assumed that the Government was behind the Bill, which was evidently part of its four year rehabilitation programme. Mr. Cobbe: It is not a Government bill. Mr. Stallworthy said they would soon see if it were; a Government bill or not, as if it were not a Government bill, it would not go through.

Mr. Jordan asked what the Government’s policy was regarding gambling, and suggested there should be a governmental enquiry into the whole system of betting, and overhaul of the arrangements under which people were or were not allowed to bet. Mr Broadfoot considered that facilities for racing clubs should be widened; that would provide for the big and regular bettor. The present art unions should be.turned into a State lottery; that would provide for the silver bettor. He did not think the prohibition of the publication of dividends and telegraphing of bets to racecourses had discouraged betting, but had merely diverted it into other channels. He thought that steps should be taken to bring that money back to the tote. He thought it might be well to license a few bookmakers, but to allow them to operate only on racecourses. i

MAKE RACING CLEANER. Mr. Armstrong did not see how the Bill could be of any use to racing clubs or anyone else. He could not see how the double tote would bring greater revenue to racing clubs. The double tote had been tried in New Zealand, but was not a success. The double tote would operate only at the expense of the present one. He contended that the tote carried only ten per cent, of the betting in New Zealand. The bookmakers did ninety per cent.

Mr. Webb said the Bill was an attempt to make racing cleaner. Twothirds of the members of the House would support it if they were free to do so. Racing clubs served a real purpose in the community. He was recently in Australia, and the more he saw of the racing control there, the prouder he became of the New Zealand racing clubs. New Zealand racing was on a higher plane, was cleaner, and the stakes, in proportion, were higher 'than in Australia. At the same time, he thought the Racing Conference had too great powers, and if he were given the opportunity, he would support the establishment of licensed betting houses.

Mr. Wright contended that the publication of dividends would do no good, and would only encourage people, who perhaps could not afford it, to gamble. Mr. Holland said that nothing was gained from gambling on races. It was usually people who could not afford it who bet. He hoped the Bill would not pass, as to reject its provisions would remove temptation from many people. Mr. Mason opposed the Bill, especially the double tote, and moved as an amendment that the House refuses to give a sec'ond reading to the Bill, which increases, rather than controls gambling facilities. The amendment was seconded by Mr. Semple who said he did not oppose the publication of dividends, but he opposed the double totalisator. He thought there were more important matters that should have been put right before they tackled a measure of that sort.

Mr. Kyle said he believed that the Bill was a genuine effort to keep gambling on the racecourse. The double totalisator was an effort to kill the bookmaker.

Mr. Clyde Carr supported the Bill and said he was assured the effect of the Bill would be to decrease the amount of illicit betting that went on. Mr. Hawke said his conscience would not allow him to support a measure that provided for additional gambling. Mr. Richards said he could not support the totalisator, which he claimed would encourage people, particularly youths, to pool their halfcrowns and bet. Mr. Richards talked the motion out.