M.P.S’ BOOKIE

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 8 October 1924, Page 5

M.P.S’ BOOKIE

A MEMBER’S DISCLOSURE. MR. ISITT’S DISCLAIMER, (By Telegraph.— Special to the Star.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 7. I > er ® was a flutter in the dovecotes ot j. arhament during the discussion on tlie second reading of the Gaming Act Amendment Bill to-day, when Mr. letter, the member for Roskill, reinforced a vigorous attack on the measure by announcing that even members of Parliament have their bookmaker m the' House itself Li opening up the question of licensing bookies, Mr. Potter declared that the House would agree with this course if /o per cent, expressed themselves as they bet, but the trouble was that many members did not vote as they betted. What could not be prohibited must be controlled, and he was thoroughly convinced the Government had tried the prohibition of the book-' maker, with the result that, instead of curtailing bookmakers, it had creathundreds more. It had driven' them underground, and they were to be found in every class of" the community, in the police, in the Justice Department, among members of Parliament, racehorse owners, trainers, and wherever there was a congregation of twenty or jnore men. Even- in the House of Parliament there was a bookmaker. 1 Members: Where ? . Mr. Potter: There is no need to mention the name when you already know the person. • Several members: We do not know him. Mr. Potter: If members do not know 'him. perhaps they have someone outside with, whom they have slv bets. In hotels, clubs, . workshops, factories and many other places you can name there are bookmakers working. The best way to prohibit the bookmaker, he continued, was to license him. Licensed bookmakers would then act as detectives in finding men who wore unlicensed. He declared that in. the Racing Conference the men most bitterly opposed to bookmakers were the greatest bettors with the hookies. It was only reasonable that a punter was not going to put .£SO on the-tote when he knew every pound put on afterwards would reduce bis dividend, whereas he got a fixed price from a bookmaker, and it did not matter whether £20,000 was taken up by the bookie afterwards. The bookmaker never sought his clients; the clients sought him. “Betting is not gambling,” Mr. Lysnar declared. The true British instinct was for a man to hack his opinion. Betting was a British virtue, not gambling. When betting was abused it became gambling, but simple betting was not'gambling. Mr. Langstone: This is a Gaming Bill.

Mr. Isitt said he would treasure Mr. Lysnar’s statement in his memory. He only wished he could hear an exposition on the subject so as to learn where- betting elided and gambling began. Replying to Mr. Potter's remarks, he said tlie member for Roskill had insinuated that those most vigorously opposed to all the evils associated with gambling were secretly going in for transactions with bookmakers, and liad even hinted that one member of the House is a bookmaker. Mr' Isitt sincerely' hoped that " nobody would suspect him of being that person. (Latighter). ». Mr. • Potter said the impression might be created that in asserting there was a bookmaker in the House he was alluding to an hon. member. What be intended to convey was the fact that there was a bookmaker in the building.