OFF-COURSE BETTING PLAN SUPPORTED

Grey River Argus, 14 October 1949, Page 4

OFF-COURSE BETTING PLAN SUPPORTED

By The National Party

P.A. WELLINGTON, Oct. 13 It was not until proceedings in the House of Representatives went off the air that the second reading debate was begun on the Gaming Amendment Bill to-night. Hon. W. G. Parry moving the second reading, said that the referendum had shown, by a marjority of two to one, that the people favoured a system of off-course betting, and there was no other things for the Government tp do than to bring down appropriate legislation.. Offcourse betting was the key to the Racing Commission’s findings, but it was not known how much the totalisator agency scheme would cost. But in order to put a scheme into operation, the bill gave the Minister of Finance authority to- advance necessary funds for a Totalisator Agency Board. It was only by trial and error that the requirements of the scheme could be determined.

Mr Parry said he could not vouch for one hundred per cent, success of the scheme, nor could he estimate what it would cost to implement. The scheme was an attemp to deal with a situation at a very late stage in the game. Mr S. G. Holland (Nat. Fendalton) said he had been advised by competent people, that if the off-course betting scheme provided for in the bill was properly conducted and operated, the amount of gambling might easily be reduced. It had been known for a long time that there had been a growing amount of unlawful betting in New Zealand, and the public had expressed the opinion that it should be stopped. The lawful and unlawful betting was estimated to amount to about fifty million pounds a year.

Mr F. Langstone; Nearly a million a week!

Mr Holland said it appeared that the law was not strong enough to stop unlawful betting. Parliament could not be blind to the decision of the people at the referendum, when two out of every three voted for some undefined scheme of off-course betting. The question was a nonparty one, but the responsibility to introduce the bill rested with the Government. The Opposition had considered the bill and was in favour of its being passed as at present drafted. The bill made a valuable safeguard in that the scheme to be submitted by the Racing and Trotting Conferences had to be approved by the Minister of Interal- Affairs. Without that safeguard, Mr Holland said he could not have voted foi* the bill. Mr Holland said his observations during his recent trip to Australia had satisfied him that smaller investments, such as 2s 6d and 5s totalisators, did not attract younger people. “I am pleased to see that the bill is going to remove a condition where a) simple sort of thing, such as the equilisator used at picnic meetings, is administered according to the liver of the local policeman,” continued Mr Holland. “There is a good deal to be said for these small country meetings. I see all around me in the House a lot of people who pay a lot of money for horses, and don’t have half as much fun as those who buy a hack for a tennef- and race it at a country meeting. “Is it intended to enforce the law against betting at sports meeting?” asked Mr Holland. “If not, what is the sense of doubling the penalty, let us either enforce the law or skip it altogether,” Mr Holland said he welcomed the provision to enable newspapers to publish the dividends. This woul denable bettors to compare the official totalisator dividend with that paid by the bookmaker. Discussing the provision to permit tipping in the newspapers and over the radio, Mr Holland said he hoped (hat this would not be done during the ■ Sunday morning broadcast: “If you take.the tips of the newspaper people .they are a long way from the mark,” said Mr Holland. Mr W .Goosman (Nat. Piako): There would be no racing if they were always right. “I would like to see newspapers back their opinions by publishing the result of a race and putting its tips underneath,” added Mr Holland. “It may. be said through the country that we are- giving a blank cheque. However,, there is a safeguard that the scheme of the conferences has to be approved by the Government, and that Parliament each year will be required to amend the legislation, and will have an annual opportunity of overhauling the legislation and going through the scheme then in force.

Mr Goosman said he agreed with practically everything that the Leader of the Opposition had said. He welcomed this bill, not because he was a big bettor, but because he was firmly of the opinion that there was far too much betting and gambling on racehorses in the Dominion. Unless there was some alternative system, put before the public, where they could have a legal bet and the law had to be enforced then let them forget about the scheme. How many people in New Zealand knew that in most of the industrial concerns there were convassers for bets, and how many people knew that there were people in Parliament buildings who would take bets? Mr R. MacDonald (Govt. Ponsonby): Why tell people about it? Keep it under your hat. Mr Goosman: “There is far too much illegal betting which has been brought about by the profit system. Government voices: “Hear! Hear!” Mr Goosman: The profit system in betting is bad.

Mr J. Mathison (Govt. Avon): What about stock exchanges? Mr Goosman: That’s all out in the open, and its legal, and if you go to the stock exchange you pay cash, but there are thousands who gamble on credit.” Mr Goosman said he welcomed the Bill because it provided a legal scheme for betting, and if the law was, enforced, it would result in a big reduction in gambling. It would also result in those people who were betting on credit being deprived of the opportunity of betting, and would re-I duce the number of people who were I in debt because of their betting ven-1 tures. Th e position in Australia was

not good, and horses had to be kept under guard.

Mr Baxter: They nearly had that in Auckland last Saturday! Mr Goosman: That’s a totally different thing. There are horses in Australia which are backed for large amounts to win, and people are frightened that they might be interfered with. Mr Goosman said there was no incentive for people in New Zealand to interfere with or injure a horse, so that it could not win. The debate was interrupted by the adjournment at mid-night until 10.30 to-morrow.