Rigid Suppression Of illegal Betting

Northern Advocate, 7 January 1948, Page 6

Rigid Suppression Of illegal Betting

WELLINGTON, Wed. (Sp.)—Despite the fact that the Gaming Amendment Act. 1920, made bookmaking illegal, the business had thrived in New Zealand, states the report of the Royal Commission on Gaming and Racing, in outlining the commission's reasons for opposing the licensing of bookmakeis. The measure of its success could be judged from the fact that, whereas approximately £20,000,000 went through the totalisators of the country during the 1945-46 racing year, a sum of £24.000,000 was, with some show of credibility, estimated by the secretary of the Dominion Sportsmen’s Association as having passed through the hands of the bookmakers. The Police Department supported the o£ bookmakers, the report says, it correctness of this estimate, and re- would be a letiogia p ported that there was reason to sus- disregard of the ess n J? , ’ pcct that no less than 763 persons were cnee for the state to ma _ p s » now engaged in bookmaking. much less encourage, either credit betThc department suspected that there ting the laying oi totalisa o • were 153 bookmakers and their agents A third objection to the licensing of in Auckland, 192 in Wellington. 62 in bookmakers is the difficulty oi reChristchurch, 55 in Palmerston North, covering taxation from them and considerable numbers in most of Licence lees would, doub ess, e the smaller towns P aid Promptly, but the amounts payTvvo alternatives of eliminating this a, ? !e would not, m the aggiegate, even wholesale system of illegal betting distantly compare with \ 0 .i considered by the commission were:— revenue that would be collected u (1) The rigid suppression of all off'- T° mone y expended in off-course betcourse betting, proposed by the Asso- ( ing were to pass through the total-

dated Churches. (2) The alternatives of licensing bookmakers or of authorising the establishment of some system of offcourse betting by which money adventured would pass through the totalisators. The commission feels that the difficulties of suppression, without the provision of some substituted form of betting are so great that, in the view of all who understand the problem, suppression is commonly regarded as practically impossible. Any attempt to enforce any such policy would be to disregard experience and the dictates of good sense and would be in the highest degree, unwise. CREDIT BETTING Implicit in the Sportsmen’s Associations proposal for the licensing of bookmakers was the continuance of two existing concomitants of the present illegal system—continuance of the present credit system of betting, and continuance of the present illegal system of betting, not at stated odds, but at odds determined by the amount of the dividend ultimately paid on the totalisator.

isator. In any event, the commission states, there-is no assurance that the licensing of a certain number of bookmakers would eliminate illegal betting. It is seriously doubted that licensed bookmakers could, or would, effectively cooperate with the police in suppressing illegal bookmaking. The most that could be said is that the licensing of bookmakers would, in some measure, minimise the amount of illegal off-course betting. It would not eliminate it. It can never be wise, the commission goes on. for any state to call into existence, or lend recognition, by legislation, to a class of persons engaged in an uneconomic occupation which

had dangerous potentialities. AGENCY AND CANVASS However innocuous or ethical, betting by individuals in small sums within the limit of their means might be, the practice is essentially in the nature of a luxury, and it is undesirable that a class should be created whose interest it is to provoke .indulgence in that luxury by everwidening groups of the community. It would be to display ignorance of human nature to believe that if bookmakers were licensed they would abandon the system of agency and canvass by which they had thriven in the past. It must be recognised that the tendency of a licence system would be to provoke, not reasonable indulgence, but over-indulgence. There is every reason to believe that the present canvassing system, despite its illegality, is both extensive and thorough. Other undesirable consequences would accrue from any system of licensing. A legal right to vested interests in undesirable business would be created.

The weight of responsible opinion had been decisively in favour of readymoney betting as against credit betting.

This is implicit in the legislative adoption of the totalisator and insistence upon its operating only upon a ready-money basis.

The prohibition against betting based on dividends to be paid by the totalisator came into force with the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1894. and had remained in force ever since

The reason for the prohibition was that if people were to receive or pay, according to the odds subsequently disnot according to the declared odds, but closed on the totalisator, there was an incentive to do what was necessary to produce a desirable result upon the totalisator.

A class would be created whose livelihood would be dependant uporr the results of a sporting event. Persons so situated would have an interest in endeavouring to control those results. , The mere presence of licensed ’bcVJkmakers operating contemporaneously with the totalisator would afford to unscrupulous individuals opportunities to'resort to questionable practices to inflate their winnings from bookmakers. NO APPEASEMENT "It would be a dangerous thing, in any event, to give legal character to the- activities of men, or of a body of men who, for years, have persisted in earning their livelihood in defiance of the law and at the risk of oftenthreatened and sometimes-imposed imprisonment.” the report continues. ••We reprobate the suggestion that the state should surrender to the difficulty of suppressing illegal bookmaking and embark upon a policy of appeasement by licensing jit. "That course, we consider, would be discreditable. “Few of the objections to which we have referred can be raised against the operation of the totalisator. "It may induce people to go to the course for the purpose of betting, but it never canvasses and it never solicits business. "Its operations are carried on in the public view, and it has no personal interests to subserve'. "In addition, it provides a sure source of revenue to the state and the racing clubs, which are thereby enabled to maintain stakes at a reasonable level and to provide and maintain amenities for the enjoyment and comfort of the public.”

That promoted further gambling, in that bookmakers were induced to back on the totalisator horses, which, in the light of the bets they had made offcourse, they desired to see pay a minimum dividend.

On the other hand, those who bet with the bookmakers were induced to back upon the totalisator other horses to inflate the amount of the dividend they would be entitled to receive if the horse won which they, had previously backed with the bookmakers. ‘‘Whatever else, therefore, may be concluded with respect to the licensing