Witnesses Oppose The Licensing Of Bookmakers

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 May 1947, Page 5

Witnesses Oppose The Licensing Of Bookmakers

(P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, May 2. Opposition to the licensing of bookmakers was expressed by witnesses called today by Mr C. S. Thomas, when the-case of theh New Zealand Trotting Conference was continued before the Royal Commission on Gaming and Racing. “It has to be recognised that the public will bet off the course, and that if legalised facilities are not available they will bet illegally with bookmakers. This is a very bad state of affairs, especially as it brings the law of the land into disrepute.” These remarks were made by Robert Mafeking Macfarlane, member of Parliament for Christchurch Central, who said he had been asked by a number of his constituents to give evidence before the commission. Referring to the suggestion tljat trotting and racing authorities should have control of an “off course” betting system. Mr Macfarlane said that if facilities were granted to the authorities it would not mean the total elimination of bookmakers, but they would be reduced to a minimum, and that would be all for the good of the sport. “If, however, facilities are not recommended, I take the view that as a last resort —and as a last resort only—it would be better to legalise the bookmaker for 'off course’ betting, rather than to let matters stand as they are,’’ he continued. The witness agreed with other witnesses that the administration of trotting in New Zealand called for no alteration, and he supported the request that extra totalisator permits should be granted. Publication of Dividends The publication of . dividends and the introduction of a doubles totalisator were also advocated by Mr McFarlane, who said that both would assist in "knocking” the bookmaker. The chairman (Mr Justice Finlay): Do you think dividends should be published? Would publication have the effect of encouraging betting? Witness: The average dividend paid throughout New Zealand is not large, and would not tend to increase the number of bettors, or attract young people. “Generally speaking, the registered bookmaker is a decent man, but where bookmakers operate there is always a class of parasites unknown to New Zealand sports,” said George Bennett Noble, referring to bookmakers in Australia. He said that five years ago he came from Australia as private trainer and studmaster to Mr J. R. McKenzie. In New South Wales and Victoria he had experience of betting systems where the totalisator and bookmakers—registered and unregistered—operated. “Professional urgers, crushers, and manipulators of odds,” were described by Noble as a class which made its living on Australian racecourses, lowering the status of the sport, and introducing sha’rp practices. The absence of such practices in New Zealand was pleasing to visitors with a knowledge of racing overseas. “Never Been Approached” To Mr Leicester, the witness said his knowledge of bookmakers in New Zealand was largely a matter of hearsay. If bookmakers were licensed to bet solely in offices to which the public had no access, he would not expect that there would be the. same class of parasites to" the same extent as in Australia. The witness, in answer to. another question, said that in New Zealand he had never been approached by a bookmakers and asked to pull a horse. Henry Alexander Jarden, a journalist, said he was in favour of the present administration of trotting. “I am satisfied that if bookmakers are licensed there will be interference with horses, and racing will not be carried on on its merits, as, generally speaking, it is today,” said the wit-