GAMING BILL

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XX, Issue 238, 26 September 1930, Page 8

GAMING BILL

SECOND READING DEBATE ARGUMENTS FOR ANO AGAINST. STATE LOTTERY SUGGESTION. Wellington, September 20. Mr K. S. Williams (Ref., Bay of Plenty), on rising to move the second reading of the Gaming Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives to-night, was greeted with applause. He said the Bill contained only two provisions—to enable people to telegraph bets on horse racing to the secretary of the club holding the meeting, and to permit the publication of dividends. It had been asserted that the Bill, if carried, would increase gambling. This, he contended, would not be so; it Would only enable people to use a. legalised form of betting. He quoted (igures showing the number of prosecutions and convictions for bookmaking. These, he said, demonstrated that betting was going on, and it was preferable that the Government and the racing clubs should get any benefit accruing from the practice. There was a business side of racing, and that was the side which concerned the employment of jockeys and trainers. If money continued to go into the hands of the bookmakers instead of on to the totalisator, it would endanger the livelihood of these men.

Mr H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) said lie believed the Bill was against the interests of true sport. He was as fond of racing as anyone else, and he liked, when he could afford it. to invest money on the totalisator. He claimed, however, that he already had all the facilities that he wanted to invest money on ,the totalisator. It would not be to the advantage of the community if every telegraph office in the country were turned into an agency for the totalisator. This country had previously, with disastrous results, had experience of the very provisions that were contained in the Bill. It would iuciKase the inducement to the people to bet and thousands who did not bet at the present time would begin to do so. The Government of the late Sir Joseph Ward had years ago taken away the right to telegraph bets, and no Government would dare to restore it. Surely the House was not going to permit a private member to restore it. Mr R. A. Wright (Ref., Wellington Suburbs) agreed that it would be impossible to put an end to bookmaking. He was in no way. opposed to horse-racing, but he believed it should bo regulated. If there were no control of any kind it would simply run to extremes. The question was, how far Parliament should go to regulate betting. The fundamental difference between supporters and opponents of the Bill related to telegraphing bets.

STATE LOTTERY. Mr W. J Broadfoot (United, Waitomo) said that during last year there had been a hundred and one applications from religious bodies to hold art unions. The principle was the same as bettiqg on horse-racing. If people were permitted to telegraph bets they were likely to be satisfied with the investment of one pound, whereas if they attended a meeting they might bo induced, to bet on every race. Referring to the publication of dividends, Mr Broadfoot asked why the public should not be told these details openly. Those who wanted to know would find out in any case by tiptoeing to a bookmaker. He intended when the Bill was in committee to move an amendment providing tor a State lottery in New Zealand. Mr W. 1). Lysnar (ludepen.. Gisborne) said that he had come to the concsion that betting was inherent in our British constitution. The Britisher was prepared to back his opinion with his money. He had been surprised by the extent of interest in betting, even m the backblocks, and he was satisfied that it nas useless to try to continue with a law that was driving this betting underground. He contended that ii was a bogey to argue that the provisions of the Bill would increase facilities for betting, which would go on m any case. It was far better that it should be brought into the open. Mr W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central) said it appeared that the State had achieved very little success in the attempt to suppress the bookmaker. Therefore it seemed desirable that there should be an attempt at some reasonable control. He asserted that he knew of people who were simply waiting for the Bill to be passed before deciding to set up in business as bookmakers. It was nonsense to argue that the Bill would reduce business with the bookmakers. LEGALISING THE BOOKMAKER. Mr T. Makitanara (United, Southern Maori) said that it was only .hypocrisy to endeavour to stop gambling, and he would move an amendment later with the object of legalising the bookmaker. The idea of the previous legislation had been to eradicate bookmakers, but now they were stronger than ever. The Act had created a sentiment towards the bookmaker and there was no reason why a license fee should not be collected from him, especially as the country was in need of revenue.

Mr F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino) said he regrettj] that the Bill had been brought forward when there were so many important subjects ,to be considered. No sport had a more damaging effect on human beings than racing, and the present Bill would simply turn the post offices into totalisator shops. Mr J. O’Brien (Lab., Westland) said he thought some amendment to the gaming legislation was necessary. He could not see any reason, for instance, why euchre halls should not be licensed so long as they were not conducted for the financial benefit of those controlling them. He believed it would bo better to publish dividends and telegraph bets than to allow the business to continue in an underground manner. Mr R. Semple (Lab., Wellington East) opposed the Bill and declared that there were more urgent problems requiring tlic attention of the House at the present time. Mr H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labour party) said he hoped tho Bill would go past tho second reading. There were a number of amendments necessary in the gaming legislation. For instance, he objected to the power of the Racing Conference in being able to insist on apprentices contracting themselves beyond the scope of the Arbitration Court.