THE GAMING BILL.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10608, 10 November 1910, Page 1

THE GAMING BILL.

SPEECHES/AND AMENDMENTS, !«!¥iR r fe:'v'f-/^y - Telegraph.;. :|..>■■. ; .H. - : '\ -^ .^&^f?;(Special. ta;Oamaru;Mail.y s ; ;•/ Sl|^S|iSa^ng; : ißill-T['as /reached in ; tie: sooh ; pftet/.thb dinner motion'to go into |Comniittee.'.6n' it L was not allowed',to some wordy speeches. As 2aj^elffliiiary-canter Mr R.vA'. .Wright yisketi;/that; 1 the. Speaker -rule.-whether 'the/Select Committee which: had considered the Bill was justified in ignoring ?aKresblu;bio:n of;the House: iff regard to the number :of 'tbtalisatbr 'iierinits. r The' .Prime Minister ■ remarked that Mi--Wright voted for it on the Committee, which had been unanimous. • Mr Speaker, stated that-the'resolution was passed; before the Bill '.was introdubeai and':'it:was sent' to them without special directions. .' ;'■''[ .' ! '•.'.'" ,■:;■ —The Prime,. Minister's: Speech.— ..; The Prime .Minister,' in .moving. .the' committal flf. the Bill',- said, that, a large \ reducjfcibii.V of racing permits was provided, -for': and the bbokhiakers were abolished. ; _•■ Meetings which were now held without ..totalisator. permits would disappear when,the Bill came into ope- i ration. .The Committee had taken:one ; ; day off the number of, races, : .a.nd.-.this .in.- itself, reduced .the sum : tptal.of racing* .It was.proposed to. set [ upa/commission to generally, adjust the I altered conditions due to the .reduction i .of r the ■permits,; therefore, the new proin regard to: proportionate re-; diic.tion,was. a. much more workable way" of securing reduction. than by setting out- a rigid 'scale. Cheques had been accepted in ;th.e Bill as one of the methods of totalisator investments. While the totalisator was legalised it was onLy : proper that it should be placed on ; a-workable basis. The alterations 'made"by' the Committee undeniably reduced the; opportunities for gambling. .'He. was not in favor of some of the amendments'.proposed to be made by various; members, and he would give his reasons on the clauses in Committee.

-;■-•-> :-.—A Sporting Speech.— .Mr ;W. H. Herries (Tauranga) leclared that the number of days' racing had-Hot increased much when the -u----crease of the-population was considered. .No: man could, say that New Zealand' was unduly; '.'horse raced." There was a popular and very strong, demand covering probably half. t3ie adult population ■ for continuance of the sport, of (racing.. The wishes., of these people coiildvnbt'be ignored.or interfered With.He strongly objected to the compulsory presence of .bookmakers on racecourses. If , the bookmaker clause as amended by the Committee were agreed to many of, the race meetings at which the totalisator was not used would probably cease.to exist. He was rather sorry, for niany of the best horses had first come into notice at these country meetings. Racing people were agreed that there should be no reduction in- the racing days, but as he recognised that the. House was determined upon it lie would accept the proposal in the Bill. Evei's'thing would depend upon the five men who wore to form the Commission which would determine the number of permits. If the sport of horse racing were crippled - there could be.. no doubt that the country's stock of track and carriage horses must deteriorate. To! injure .-the' sport would be to do the country an infinity.of harm.

—Some Conflicting Views Mi E H T.nloi (Thames) said that the attendance ,iliac.3 meetings Jid not indicate tJi.it there was .i big demand for racing, but it did show i\ vei\ great amount ol hum in depia\ity Jl the spoil was to depend npon g.Muolmg toi its suppoi t, then the> should let it go The-\ had to contend with the gambling spint moie than the lacing spint Gambling encouiagcd e\eijtlnng that hj's antisocial Mi A. I'j Grlovei (Auckland') said that gainblmg could not be lestiiclxd Dy legislation The abolition of the bookmakei would mean that the man -oho wou'd othciwise nnest 2s 6d with ( hookmakei vould be compelled to spend 10s on a totahsator ticket The mar\ would loss, of comae —(Laughter), but who would suffei s It »' ouU be the butcher, the baker and the landloid He hoped the Hou=e v.cull bo very careful befoie it placed sack a Bill upon the Statute Book He was prep'ned to help in unpio l mg the existing condition, of things, but he was not peach fto go as far as the Bill asked him to Theiefoie he would do what ho could to pi event its passage e\en if lie had xo stjj in Wellington until afte' Christmas He agieed that theic had been too much lacing, but w is stiongly of opinion that the gieatcst incentne to gambling had been the tote Mr TV D S Macdonald of Plenty) said that the excessive gambling which had culminated in tlie mtioduction of the Bill had taken place in the laige centres, and the countij distiicts should not be penalised He hoped that country members would stand together to secure that the Commissioneis should have discretional y power to extend permits to well-con-ducted country clubs Mi R. A Wright (Wellington South) said that the only desire was to restrict gambling It would be a gieat mistake to allow newspapeis to publish betting news and starting puces, ami he was convinced that the motive underlying tlie "proposal was to enable bookmakers 'to carry on business He did not believe that tlie passage of the Bill would bring,about much of a reduction m racing Much greater power should be given to, the police to prevent bookmakers carrying on their business on the streets. ' —/The Bookmakers Defended „ Mr T. M' Wilfoid (Hutt) baid that publication of dividends in yie newspapers could be justified becaube"m the first-place, it checked crooked lunmng Jt<also>ut the bettor on a. let el with the-, bookmaker The greatest harm w as going to He done to tlie country b> -taking-the bookmakers off the course ,and turning them loose in the streets instead of having them labelled on the racecourse.,"under a fee and; knowing where? 4;hey were'and how to control.thcinl The> would be found anjwhere. .-,A~ member., Are'.thej not on the ■streets oiow p . /- rjSTol-openly, said-Mr Wilford, adding that, thought might be. a voice crying tn-silie." Vlderness, he would, still ad r nere>to"ffie opinion'that this particular was a, grave mistake, and nsouM3h.ave.to he- rsvejsecbby legislation jiefoje Wveryrlong."" , , , "■ __ - j to-""" t—Arßaccarton Advocate. — ■"i Mr G. -Witty (Riccarton) said that* 4he investments apparently rung on the Tnachine aftecthe totahsator had closed, Vere units that had to be rung jip.'-Tle--had fought hard against the bookmaker clause, realising that it was" the-greatest'<dangei. The Bill was an ( honesWttempt to clean the sport, but too" many- speakers -condemned things that they- knew nothing about -,Mr-G. 'V Pearce (Patea) said that the retention of the totahsatoi would more effectually banish the hookmakei If the lack of totahsator permits would

"kill the -country meetings-it;-wasjh'eiiter-jthat'they.should ■ .-" !'-f '■?;£ .;^ : ' : :. ■:,.<: Bill to Go Through;--^': \v, V"! ''' In reply-to Mr F. M.B.- ..Fisher, the flPrime. Ministeivsaid that :he ; intended to' sgo into ' Committee*; pn; the ..Bill.;,that jnightv■" :" V;-' ■-■»■,'■- ii ■"'.-'■ ''^'•'-■-' .-.VV -.' ■ ■ Air -Massey (Leader of. the Opposition) i'said that, the question- was not! a party ; one. f This was, proved- ;by the" speeches :'bf the members for Thames, and Auck- ; land, and if he were, asked which view ; would be more supported!in the Houseand - the country , he ;. would say jVIr Glover's. :Mr Massey jidded that he regarded'l the .amendments! hi 'Committee as a "great improvement'.The House went into Committee on tiie,Bill.;afe! ; iKp,m : .,- .', ; ; ;.:.:.,X; ,-

"-■ :_The Bill in Cdmmittee.— f.' ■■' SirfW- J. "Steward JCWaitaki), moved, to insert'' place"- instead of '/street" in the" penal -clause for. street betting, but withdrew his amendment in fay or of the suggestion that hj« should move -the, addition- of, the words ' 'street as: defined by section 24 of the principal Act.'.' .-.-■- '- ,- ; ! !.".-,- i - .■ ■ ■ :rMr-'* : <T.. .P. Luke moved what he claimed to he a pripr amendment to include street, puhhc .-reserve.,, wharf, ..or quay, side.: .-'..» ■;':■. !:!■: ';,-.' _-, The Chairman.(Mr Cplyin). ruled that Sir Steward's'amendment had priority, and it -W'.asi-carried.;; --!; •■■•;_.-■ Mr, Luke proposed, ,to mp.ve his amendment, but, -the Prime Minjster assured him. that it ; was-covered by another; section:.which defined ;aTstreet .asany footway, whether.'.' a thoroughfare or not, and whether private or; not. ..Mr, Wilford. moved .to increase the penalty .for a.second offenqe of street betting, from !three .months';, : tp, six months'. The Prime. Minister said; that the Committee might as. well, repeal, the clause as. carry ;the amendment, which merely -gave the right forepersons to be tried 'by a jury. .. .. ■ . • Mr W. ■ Fraser said, that he ■ agreed With the Prime. Minister as to trial by jury-. , The. clause .'would a farce,- . u . : The clause was defeated 'by. .-63 votes to 12.

A great deal of argument centred in the clause ' 'every person who makes pr offers to make 'any, .bet on any,racecourse is: liable to the like, penalties as are prescribed by. the., last preceding section." '. Mr Herries moved to insert the word "bookmaker." in. place -.of "person," stating that otherwise the clause would prevent two owners from betting a new hat on a race. : Mr T.--E. Taylor: said, that the bookmaker, being, legally dead, could not legally make a bet. Other speakers said th at' the ~c lause":- una mended; wou Id prevent betting with the tote, and gested that it should be struck out. On the motion of Mr Herries, a proviso was added allowing that clubs should continue a meeting beyond the number of da.ys ; aloltted in th-3 case of. incicment. weather or extraordinary oii ouri stances. ... Sir. Joseph Ward moved to - strike out' sub-clause B, which repeals section 32 of the principal Act, the effect of which ""is to make it illegal-,to publish itotalisator dividends-. The clause wa sstiuck out/by 50. to 20. A now clause inoved by Mr Pearce, making bookmarkers idle and disorderly ipersons,.. within the meaning of the Police Offences Act was lost by .52 to, 14. ' - v A clause moved by Mr Arnold, pro T viding f.or a, referendum on the detention of'tlie totalisator at next general election was'objected .tc ' aft' being an appiopnation clause, but Die Chanman liiled that"it was not The clause was-lost on the voices The Bill vas Willi amendlead a -tlm J time and paascd. The House lose it 3 23