THE GAMING ACT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2804, 11 December 1907, Page 57

THE GAMING ACT.

BOOKMAKERS' GRIEVANCES. * ADVICE BY THE PRIME MINISTER. fFEOSI OUB. Own CoRMSPONDEKT.) AUCKLAND, December 3. Some fairly straight advice was tendered by the Prime Minister to the racing clubs of the Dominion to-day, in Teply to a j deputation of bookmakers which repre- | eented to him that the spirit of the aot I was being defeated by the clubs in charg- ! ing the highest possible fees to both bookmakers and their clerks. The double fees would mean for all the race meetings around Auckland £1600 a year to each bookmaker. The Prime Minister, in replying said _ the Gaming Act was a \ery drastic one. It was intended by Parliament to be drastic, for the House took into consideration the fact that there was a great consensus of opinion amongst the community against the rambling that was going on, and 6 gainst tote odds and fetreet betting. That agitation was not new. It had been moving for some four or five years, and the Government, in going into the question of endeavouring to suppress street betting, although he did not suppose any OkrrernmfTit could absolurely control it, had thought the drastic clauses of the act would, to a considerable extent, help to put a stop to some of the worst form-, of tho e\il. That .vas the main object of the act. Racin? clubs were licensed and permits were issued to each club with the object of linnuig the number of days on which races could bo held. There was a general opinion that ihere were too many racing da\s now. and he himself thought they "should be reduced. Thni\ however, was not the point under review The Government looked at the position in the light thpt wlkm-p racing \*a* carried on, an.-l betting, whether by the tote or by Lwkmaktru, was to be indulged in. that

betting should be confined strictly to the racecourse, and the Government, in the administration of ite duty, did not recognise either friends or opponents of the totalisator. A great many of the members of the House were in favour of the continuance of the totalkator, and a 6 the House was against street tott betting and telegraphio betting, and was in favour of the tote, it came to the oon-clusion that if it was legitimate to license the totalisator on the racecourse, then it was legitimate to Hoen6e the bookmaker. A great many peoplo believed in hov£e-racing as a sport, and as Parliament believed racing could r.ot be carried on without the necessary wherewithal through the tcte, the Government came to the conclusion that, a racecourse being lawful 'and a totalisator being legal, then it was the natural corollary to say that reputable bookmakers ehojuld have similar opportunity, but only on racecourses, and that proposal was out into the act, and it was passed by Parliament with the bona fide intention of ooni fining betting to the racecourse, and in the belief that it would be co regarded by racing clubs and bookmakers, and that was the spirit in which the law should be carried out. He could not interfere with the administration of an act. but the racing clube should recognise, in their own interest, that if they took up a. position that they -were to be the onlj legal institutions to carry on the betting, then they would focus public opinion on them, and would suffer accordingly. He was speaking Suite impersonally in this, and could say lat the drastic legislation was put on the Statute Book with the intention of confining betting to the racecourse, and removing the temptation, -particularly from young people, in the towns. He was sorry to see that there was a tendency to defeat the intention of Parliament, for there was not a member of the House or the Crovernment who expected that any racing -club would put the bookmaker's clerk in the same position as the bookmaker, for the purpose of charging double fees. The jp,int and intention of the act was that 'racing clubs should have the power to license bookmakers, and the clerk 3 were made the same as booktaiakers only for the penal ' clauses. But nothing of the kind of meaning read into the act of power to charge double fees was intended, and he would be sorry to see that racing clubs, even ■ if they had strong feelings in the matter, i were going to so strain the intention of ; Parliament ac to impose double fees. He could only say that Parliament intended to confine betting to the racecourses, and the legislation was passed in the belief that the clubs would work in the direction of j seeing that what was fair was done. That | was the spirit in which the act should be I carried out, for it was not necessary for ' him to say that public opinion in the matter of gambling was very strong, and the clubs would only create a feeling against the tote, which a majority of the House were now in favour of. He had no hesitation in saying that the legislation confining betting toraoeooursea, and doing away with street betting and telegraphic betting, would not have been carried by Parliament unless the clause in the bill providing for the licensing of bookmakers had been included. He said that with a full knowledge of the position, and those -who were carrying on raoing in this country should recognise that his own opinion was that the best course was for all racing clubs to work with the respectable bookmaker and raise the sport to a standard that would not leave it ooen for such strong public opinion to be directed against it. He was sorry to hear there was any tendenoy to distort the meaning of the act. Mr Lyons: They have already done it. The Prime Minister: Then it is contrary to what Parliament intended, and to the spirit of the ac+ However, I hope that better counsel will prevail and better conditions will be brought about. DEPUTATION TO DR FINDLAY. (Per TJitited Pbess Association.) WELLINGTON, December 3. About 20 fcocj .makers waited on the Attorney-general to-day to complain about the manner in which the new Gaming I Act was administered by the Feilding Racing dub last week, ana to ask that the law should be carried out in the spirit intended by the legislation. Mr Scott, Wellington, said the deputation represented the bookmakers of New Zealand, who. wished to protest against the manner in which the Feilding Jockey Club had violated clause 35 of the act They asked the Attorney-general to issue a man date to racing clubs compelling them to administer the act in the spirit of fairness intended by the legislature They protested against the charge of £20 per day each for a bookmaker and his clerk. It was reported that the Woodville Club intended to follow the lend, and would charge £20 per day for clerk as well as £20 per day for the bookmaker. The Feilding Club I refused to. recognise bookmakers* clerks, in fact. Further, the deputation wished to protest against that portion of the Feilding i course set apart for bookmakers (near the latrines). The enclosure, which is 9ft by 39ft, hae been roped in. [ The Attorney-general said he was strongly of opinion that -betting should be confined to some proper ftart of the course. The whole thing, however, would become a farco if unreasonable stipulations were made, and clubs insisted on compliance with such stipulations Mr Scott said the bookmakers, when they refused to pay what was a £30 license, were excluded from the Feilding course as civilians. Dt Findlay: Fou had better stick ho your characters as bookmakers and fight it out on those lines, and not as civilians. Mr Scott said bookmakers did not want to bet on the lawn or grand stand. They did object to being roped in an enclosure. They suggested that the rules of the A.J.C. or V.R.C, or the English rules be advocated. The bookmakers were trying to carry out the provisions of the new actis.- Findiaj- : Weil, i want to have a word to say on that point. I want to know i whether you, as leading bookmakers in the Dominion, are going on your part to carry ' out the intention of the act. ' Mr Scott : We are. j Dr Findlay : You will ': I nave noticed that statements have been made ;n; n the newspapers that that is not &o Mr Bcoft remarked that new men "sprang up." and leading bookmakers could not be saddled with any responsibility for their actions. Dr Findlay: You say you hare shut down ? Mr Scott : Absolutely. Dr Findlay : You are obeying ihc law Mr Scott; Absolutely

Mr Barnett (Christchurch) made the suggestion that the fee for bookmakers to carry on their calling on racecourses should be on the basis of 1 per cent, on the stakes offered. At Wellington this ■would mean a fee of £20 per day, £15 at Feilding, and from £5 to £10 at smaller j meetings. Dr Findlay : You represent the South Island ? Can you give me any assurance that you are trying to carry out the act, and that you are observing its provisions? Mr Barustt : There was an article in last night's Evening Pest which undoubtedly j referred to ourselves. We opened a book , on the Auckland Cup and Railway Handi- ; cap before the act was passed. We had ' a liability of perhaps £1000 either way. j We thought we would have to close down. We took legal auvice, and found that there was nothing in the law to prevent us making our ante-post book, and that we could do " business as usual." We only kept an office for the purpose of entering up our business, and not to bet. Dr Findlay : Of course we will deal with that matter independently. Mr Barnett : We are quite prepared to observe the law.

In the course of his reply Dr Findlay I stated that bookmakers had no right to expect that one would get any indulgence from the Govenment. The duty of the Government would not permit of any favour being shown to any agency for gambling. That he wished to make clear. It was the plain duty of the Government i to see that the act, whether for or against bookmakers, was being genuinely carried | out. He was not going to deal with a ! I quibbling interpretation of the law, nor j with suggested evasions. The plain intention of the act could be recognised by everyone -who had the intelligence to read it. The intention of the act was to confine betting on horse racing to racecourses, so that the calling of the bookmaker had been limited to a specific area. There I " was nothing in the law to compel a racing club which owned ite own course to grant licenses to bookmakers at all. The obligation was on tho Be clubs which held permits to use a totalisator. Clause 35 of the new act was this: that if a club came to the Government and obtained a license to gamble by means of the totalisator, then the State had a right to impose such conditions as it saw fit. For the future one condition of the right to U6e the totalieator would be compliance by cluba with clause 35 of the act of 1907. If a club refused to carry out section 35, then, under the authority conferred on him as Minister in charge, licenses to such clubs to use totalisators would not be granted He pointed out that section 46 oi " The Gaming Act, 1881," gave the Colonial Secretary entire discretion in the issue or cancellation of licenses to use the totalisator. While he recognised that if the law was stringently enforced reputable bookmakers would be more confined than ever before, it was the Government's right to protect bookmakers in the exercise of such provisions as they were entitled to, to protect them against unreasonable restrictions and the wnittling away of such rights as they poeseEsed to a mere shadow or delusion. Speaking entirely for himself, he considered it was the duty of the Government to exercise the discretion given to it under clause 46 of the aot of 1861, and to say whether the totalieator license be issued or not in certain cases where clubs were wilfully refusing to carry out the spirit of section 35 of the act of 1907. He desired to make it perfectly clear that he was not condemning the action of any racing club since the act came into force. He would ascertain whether the conduct of the two clubs referred to (Feilding and Woodville) was reasonable or notu but he could . not make any definite pronouncement on the question without hearing the authorities of the clubs and making full inquiry. He had received information that several people connected with racing clubs were trying to induce the clubs to make section 35 a dead letter. He repeated that if after full inquiry he found that any club was acting in the manner indicated, then, subject to the approval of his colleagues, he would not hesitate to do his duty and rescind the permit to use the totalisator. In regard to bookmakers themselves, they had the benefit of clau6e 35 in their own hands. The purpose of the section was to put bookmakers on a course in no better and no worse a position than the totalisator, co that there would be fair competition between each. He urged the members of the deputation to meet the racing authorities and arrange a working basis A fee upon bookmakers up to £20 was entirely in the discretion of the clubs. He repeated at length that clubs had no right to impose captious conditions, but they had the right to make reasonable conditions and to secure that the operations of the bookmakers would not become a nuisance. The conduct of bookmakers was being watched very closely, and he was «?lad lo have the assurance of Mr Scott tha-t they were observing the law in nil sincerity. Attempts at evasion by clubs, if the bookmakers themselves did not observe the law, would not induce much sympathy on the part of the public. There wae no uee criticising clubs if the book- i ! makers did not observe the law. It was 1 perhaps a chance to lift the bookmaking I business to a plane it had not oocupied in New Zealand before, now that they had ■^ statutory right to carry on their calling. He concluded by saving that if clubs did not carry out the spirit of the act he would advise his colleagues to exercise the corrective to which he had referred.