STONEWALL TACTICS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18526, 12 October 1934, Page 5

STONEWALL TACTICS

GAMING AMENDMENT DEBATE IN THE HOUSE BILL’S DOUBTFUL CHANCES (Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON', this day. Faced with the prospect of the second Reading being carried by a majority of probably a dozen, the opponents of the Gaming Amendment Bill settled down in the House of Representatives to consistent talk, with the object of reaching the adjournment time, midnight, without the possibility of taking a division. They succeeded, and it depends oirthe Government's decision whether this measure, in the hands of a private member, gets a further opportunity for consideration in the present session. The bill, which has passed the Legislative Council, proposes to legalise the double totalisator and the publication of dividends.

While its opponents were active, it was the task of its friends to avoid taking up time with advocacy. Therefore, a great' majority of the speakers deal with the necessity of preventing further increases in gambling, which they contended would result from the passing of the bill. ..Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Lab., Auckland Sub.) gave point to this by moving an amendment to the second reading: “That the House refuses to give a second reading to a bill which increases, rather than controls gambling facilities.” One of the most original of opposing arguments came from Mr. 11. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch E.), who explained that it costs the bookmakers’ organisations £7OOO to £BOOO annually to obtain information regarding results of races and dividends, which were telegraphed instantly to all members of the Bookmakers’ Association. They paid £1 per member for each race meeting. If tfaebill was passed, this information, which was so expensive to obtain, would be provided free by the newspapers and the radio. It would throw out of work » Aumber of people now engaged in cob lecting information for bookmakers. CLOSURE MOTION } ' Half an hour before the adjournment, Mr. H. M. Campbell (Lab., Hawke’s Bay), in the interests of the bill, moved a closure motion, which Mr. Speaker refused to accept, as it involved interrupting ti speaker, and, as he explained, in any case he did not feel justified in accepting it. In moving the second reading of the bill, Mr. J. A. Murdoch (Coal., Marsden) said the bill had passed another place. The idea of bringing it forward was to help the sporting community, in the first place, 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 to the Government. Racing clubs also had been affected, with the .result that many horses were being sent to Australia.

The bill proposed to legalise the double totalisator and to allow the publication of'dividends. A somewhat similar bill had previously been before the House, but in the present measure,a contentious clause, which provided lor telegraphing . bets, to racecourses, had been removed. Mr. W. El Parry (Lab., Auckland -0.). said the bill fell short of bringing about a solution of a. question that had .been a vexed one for 25 years. He believed that racing should be cleansed and brought into the open. He considered that if betting were abolished, racing in New Zealand would cease. 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 knew that many men most prominent in racing circles held the same views as he did. He quoted what had been done In South Australia, where betting was strictly controlled and bookmakers were legalised.

“FRIVOLOUS LEGISLATION” Mr. F. Langstofio (Lab.,. Waimarino) said that, if racing clubs thought, they would receive ally benefit from the bill it showed only ignorance. Pooling and centralisation were the only methods by which racing clubs could get themselves out of their difficulties. Mrs. E. R. McCombs (Lab., Lyttelton) asked what position in the country the ■people behind the bill held that they could hold np 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 that was worse than frivolous, for it dealt with a subject which to. her was abhorrent. She would like to see gambling eliminated altogether in the .Dominion. Mr. A. J, .Stallworthy (Ind., Eden) said that 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 fouryear rehabilitation, programme. He opposed Hie bill and said it was antisocial and anti-Christian. The lion. J. G. Cobbe: It is not a Government Dill. Mr. Stnllworthy said they would soon see if it was a Government bill or riot, as if it was not. a Government bill it would not go through. Ho would like, to know what undertaking was given by the Minister of Finance to a deputation of the sport ing community which waited on him the previous night. RACING ON HIGH PLANE Mr. W. J. Jordan (Lab., Manukan) asked what the Government’s policy was regarding gambling. He suggested that there should be. a Governmental inquiry into the system of betting, and an overhaul of the arrangements under which people were or were not allowed to bet, Air. P. 0. Webb (Lab., Buffer) said the bill was an attempt to make racing cleaner, and two-thirds of the. members of the House would support it if they were free to do so. Racing clubs served a real purpose in the community. He, was recently in Australia, and the more he saw of racing control there the prouder he became of the New Zealand racing clubs. New Zealand racing was on a higher plane, was cleaner, and the stakes, in proportion, were higher than In Australia. At the same time, he thought that the Racing Conference had too great powers, and if lie were given the opportunity he would support the establishment of licensed betting houses. Mr. lb A. Wright (Ind., Wellington Sub.) said be did not think that whatever was done they would get rid of all the evils connected with the, gambling business, as if lent itself to. evils. He contended that the -publication of dividends would do no good and would only encourage people who perhaps could not afford to gamble. STATE LOTTERIES URGED. Air. H. Holland (Coal., Chcb. N.) said he had received communications from several churches asking him to oppose an extension of gambling. Ho said that if more race meetings were held it must impoverish racing clubs and make it more difficult for them to carry on. Nothing was gained from gambling on races. It was usually people who could not afford it who uiad'e bets. He hoped that the bill would not pass, as to reject its provisions would remove temptation from many people. Air. It, Semple (Lab., Wei. E.) said he did not oppose the publication of dividends, hut opposed the double tofalisator. He thought there were more important matters that should have been put Tight before the house tackled a measure of that soft.

Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Coal., Wnitomo) said lie considered that the facilities for racing clubs should bo widened; that would provide for the big and regular bettor. The present art unions should be turned into a State lottery and that would provide for tho silver bettor. 110 did not think the prohibition of the publication of dividends and telegraphing bets to racecourses had discouraged betting; it had merely diverted it into other chanels. lie thought steps should be taken to bring that, money back to the totalisator, which in Ms opinion was the best form of betting. It might be well to license a few bookmakers, but allow them to operate only on racecourses. ONLY TINKERING Mr. 11. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch E.) said he did not see how the bill could be of any use to racing clubs or anyone else, lb*, could not sec how tlm double, totalisator would; bring greater revenue to racing clubs. The double totalisator bad been tried in New Zealand but was not a success. It would operate only at tlm expense ■ of the present one.' In any country except New Zealand the ban oil tlm publication of dividends would be a,n absurdity, but. it was not an absurdity in New Zealand because betting was not controlled hero. The. present legislation was only tinkering with, the position. He contended that the totalisator carried only 10 per cent, of the betting in New Zealand, and the bookmaker did 00 per cent. Air. H. S. f\ Kyle (Coal., Riccarton) believed that the bill was a genuine effort to keep gambling on the racecourse. The double totalisator was an effort to kill the bookmaker. Mr. Clyde Carr (Lab., Timavu) supported the bill. He said ho bad been assured that the effect of the bill would be to decrease the amount of illicit betting that went on. .Mr. R. W. Hawke (Coal., Kaiapoi) said that his conscience would not allow him to support a measure that provided for additional gambling. Mr. A. S. Richards (Lab., Roskill) said that he could not; support the double totalisator, which, he. claimed, would encourage people, particularly youths, to pool their half-crowns for a bet. Mr. Richards talked the motion out and the House rose at midnight.