TALKED OUT

Northern Advocate, 12 October 1934, Page 6

TALKED OUT

GAMING AMENDMENT STRONG OPPOSITION. PUBLICATION OF DIVIDENDS. DOUBLE TOTALISTOR. (Per Press Association.—Copyright.) WELLINGTON, This Day. The second reading of the Gaming Amendment Bill was moved in the House of Representatives yesterday by Mr A. J. Murdoch, (Government— Marsden). Mr Murdoch said the bill had been passed by the Legislative Council, and the idea in 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 1933 was £7,900,000. In 1933 the 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 for the Government. Racing clubs had also" been affected, 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. A somewhat similar bill had previously been before the House, but in the present measure, the contentious clause, which provided for the telegraphing of bets to racecourses, had been removed. Mr W. E. Parry (Labour—Auckland Central) said the bill fell short of bringing about a solution of a question that has been a vexed one -for 25 years. He believed that racing should be cleansed. He considered that if betting were abolished, racing in New Zealand would cease, and he did not think’that would be a good thing for the country, as people would bet on races in other countries and much money would be sent out of the country. He quoted what had been done in South Australia, where betting was strictly controlled and bookmakers were legalised. Mr F. Langstone (Labour —Waimarino) said if the racing clubs thought they would receive benefits from the bill it showed only ignorance. Pooling and centi'alisation were the only methods by which racing clubs could get themselves out of their difficulties. “Worse Than Frivolous.” Mrs E. R. McCombs (Labour— Lyttelton) asked what position in the country the 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, for it dealt with a subject which to her was abhorrent. She would like to see gambling eliminated altogether from the Dominion, Mr'A. J, Stallworthy (Independent —Eden) said nobody could deny that gambling was a great national evil. He thought it could reasonably be assumed that the Government was behind the bill, which was evidently part of its four-year rehabilitation programme. He opposed the bill, and said it was anti-social and antiChristian, The Hon. J. G. Cobbe, Minister of Justice: “It is not a Government bill.” Mr Stallworthy said he would like to know what undertaking was given by the Minister of Finance to a deputation of the sporting community which waited on him the previous night.

Mr W. J. Jordan (Labour—Manukau) asked what the Government’s policy was regarding gambling. He suggested there should be governmental inquiry into the whole system of betting, and an overhaul of the arrangement under which people were or. were not allowed to bet. Wider Scope Urged.

Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Government— Waitomo) considered the facilities for : racing clubs should be widened to , provide for the big and regular bettor. 1 The present art unions should be turni ed into a State lottery, and that would , provide for the silver bettor. The prohibition of the publication of dividends and the telegraphing of bets has hierely diverted betting into other channels, and he thought that steps should oe taken to bring that money back to the totalisator, which was the best form of betting. He thought it might be well to license a few bookmakers, but to allow them to operate only on racecourses, Mr P, C. Webb (Labour —Buller) said he was recently in Australia, and the more he saw of racing control there the prouder he became of New Zealand racing clubs. New Zealand racing was on a higher plane, was cleaner, and the stakes were higher in proportion thdh in Australia. At the same time he thought the powers of the Racing Conference were too great, and if he were given an opportunity he would support the establishment of licensed betting houses. Mr R. A. Wright (Independent— Wellington Suburbs) said the publication of dividends would do no good and would only encourage people who perhaps could not afford to gamble. Churches Pretest. Mr H. Holland (Government— Christchurch North) said he had received communications from several churches asking him to oppose the extension of gambling. He hoped the bill would not pass, as to reject its provisions would remove temptation from many people. Mr H. G, R. Mason (Labour —Auckland Suburbs) opposed the bill, especially the double totalisator, and moved as an amendment that the House should refuse to give a second reading to a bill which increased, rather than controlled, gambling facilities. The amendment was seconded by Mr R, Semple (Labour—Wellington East), who said he did not oppose the publication of dividends, but he ! did oppose the double totalisator. ' There were more important matters ; that should have been put right be- ■ fore they tackled a measure of that , sort.

Mr C, L. Carr (Labour—Timaru) supported the bill. He said he was sure that the effects of the bill would be to decrease the amount of illicit betting that went on. Mr R. W. Hawke (Government— Kaiapoi) said his conscience would not allow him to support a measure that provided for additional gambling. Mr A. S, Richards (Labour —Roskill) said he could not support the double totalisator, which he claimed would encourage people, particularly youths, to pool their half-crowns and bet. Mr Richards talked the motion out and the House rose at midnight,