N.Z. GAMING LAW

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18192, 13 September 1933, Page 7

N.Z. GAMING LAW

NEED FOR AMENDMENT W.R.C. CHAIRMAN’S VIEWS BACK TO 1907 POSITION (Special to the Herald.) WELLINGTON, this day. To meet the wishes of the racing authorities of New Zealand in respect of the Gaming Act amendments proposed by successive conferences, and now pressed for as one means of ensuring the' continuance of racing as a self-sup-porting business in the country, the Government is asked to revert to the position of 19C7, when the telegraphing of Investments to the totalisator, the conduct of the double totalisator, and the ,publication of> dividends were, permitted under the existing laws governing. tl\p sport. In the crisis which now faces racing, burdened as it is with high taxation and substantial overhead costs which cannot- be brushed off, prominent administrators of the sport are bringing their full influence to bear on the Government to provide for the necessary amendments during the coining session of Parliament.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the Wellington Eaeing i Club yesterday, Mr. E. L.' Riddiford, president of that club, reviewed forcefully • the reasons for the present agitation on the part of racing arid t'rottirig clubs.’ He traced the history of the successive enactments which produced the present restrictions upon the sister sports, in relation to the gaming element, and after presenting the case generally for the repeal of certain of these enactments, he quoted the experience of the Wellington Racing Club in particular as an argument for the loosening-up of the rigid control of bet ting facilities. THE LEGISLATION OF 1907 In the course of his address, Mr. Riddiford pointed out that the year 1907 had. been a critical one in the history of gaming legislation in this country, markipg the period at which Sir Joseph Ward made it a matter of Government policy to confine betting to racecourses. The course of the Government was influenced by two factors, neither of which were favorable to the two conferences governing the. respective forms of racing. First there was the group of social bodies which wanted to make all betting illegal, and second there was the strong organisation of bookmakers. The bill of 1907 was a compromise with the claims of these two interests, and the effect of the bill was to limit totalisator betting facilities to those present on a racecourse, to prohibit the publication of dividends, and to enable the licensing of bookmakers, who were able to operate in opposition to the totalisator. Two years’ experience of the working of this bill, he' said, was sufficient to indicate the immense advantage which the bookmaker enjoyed, at the expense of the totalisator, under conditions which prevented off-course betting with the machine, but encouraged off-course betting with the bookmakers. The lawful off-course activities of the licensed bookmakers were limited to some extent. but the facilities for them were much greater than for the totalisator. The Gaming Amendment Act of 1910 repealed the provisions for licensing bookmakers, but failed to declare their calling illegal, and for a time they enjoyed a monopoly of off-course betting untrammelled even by the regulations which formerly had restricted them to seme extent. . They also had a complete monopoly of all double betting.

Illegal calling In 1920, continued Mr. Riddiford, an attempt was made to abolisii the bookmaker by declaring his calling illegal, but the one effective means of abolishing him was not adopted—the giving to the totalisator, as the only lawful means of betting on horse races, facilities for receiving money which, in the absence of those facilities, went as freely as ever to the bookmaker.

It was assumed, said Mr. Riddiford, that the Government did not contemplate the abolition of all facilities for betting on horse races; and that as the policy of the law was to confine all betting to the totalisator, the logical development of that policy was a course of action which would divert to the machine at least a reasonable percentage of the huge sum that annually flows through illicit'channels. TheYact that bookmakers still flourished despite the heavy lines imposed by law was a sufficient answer to the argument that an increase in the facilities for totalisator betting would mean a large increase in the actual volume of gambling. ' The betting instinct being one that no law can effectively eradicate, or even discourage, should not the aim of the law bo to give a reasonably full lawful outlet' for "that instinct, he asked ? REVENUE FROM RACING The argument that the State benefited very largely from the sport of racing, in the form of taxation, was mentioned by Mr. Riddiford, who incidentally pointed out that, the cost of collecting the racing taxation was nil, all the work being placed upon the clubs themselves. The failure of the revenue from this sport doubtless would lead the Government to impose other and distasteful taxes to make up the loss in the State income, and it was known that the fall of racing revenue during the depression had really embarrassed the Government of New Zealand. Any means whereby the revenue from this source could be improved should be welcomed by the Government, in consequence, and would help to relievo the general taxpayer from the excessive burdens of the present times.

It was obvious that revenue from racing could not be increased by an enlargement of the present forms of taxation ; it would be impossible even to arrest the recent decline by this means. The totalisator tax in New Zealand was the highest in the world, representing no less than 3s 4d in each £l, while the stakes tax was burdensome and less productive because of the present low value of stakes, and an increase in the amusement tax would simply place even greater burdens on the club finances, ns the cost could not be passed on to the public in the present circumstances. “RACING GROSSLY OVER-TAXED” “Racing for the past three years lias been grossly over-taxed,” declared Mr. Riddiford. “Higher rates on existing taxes and new taxes imposed during the war and again during the depression of 1921 were not substantially reduced, and the latest increase in 1930 has been very nearly the last straw, even though clubs are temporarily being allowed to retain nearly half that increase. “From the revenue point of view the telegraphing of investments and the double totalisator would divert sufficient of the money now going through the bookmakers to make for an increase of £50,000 per annum in Post and Telegraph revenue, and another £200,000 in racing revenue proper. An increase in totalisator turnover would benefit far more than the State. Under the rules of racing it would bring increases in stakes (bringing, incidentally, more revenue in stakes tax to the State). Increase in stakes would mean increased remuneration for jockeys (whose riding fees are on a percentage basis), foi trainers (who also for the most part work on the basis of a percentage of stakes won), for stablemen and othei employees, and mean, too, a revival in those .trades which are to varying extents dependent on the racing owner. “If racing ceased the amount of distress from consequent unemployment would be calamitous. It is estimated that no fewer than 10,000 people (racing club servants, trainers, jockeys, stableliands, employees on stud farms, etc., mid their familie-) have no other means of livelihood than racing, while thousands of others have small incomes considerably augmented by seasonal work in connection with racing. It would be superfluous to elaborate the impossibility of providing for all these peuple were they suddenly thrown into the ranks of the unemployed.” After quoting impressive figures from the accounts of tlie Wellington Racing Club, in respect of the payments to the Government in taxation over a period of years, and the heavy capital outlay which the club had undertaken, and must provide interest upon, Mr. Riddiford, m conclusion, submitted for their earnest consideration, as men sharing the responsibility of the governing of the Dominion, irrespective of their own personal views on betting, that the desired amendments of the law were reasonable from every point of view, involving no new facilities for betting, but only a diversion of existing betting from illegal to legal channels, most desirable from the point of view of the public revenue, ud urgently necessary to save the finances of racing, and to bring the State without further taxation much-needed additional revenue.