GAMING LAWS

Southland Times, Issue 21198, 26 September 1930, Page 8

GAMING LAWS

AMENDMENT BILL DEBATE ON SECOND ‘ READING ADJOURNED TILL TO-DAY (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, September 25. When the House of Representatives re-sumed-at 7.30 this evening, Mr K. S. Williams (R., Bay of Plenty), on rising to move the second reading of the Gaming Amendment Bill, was greeted with applause. He said that the Bill contained only two provisions to enable people to telegraph bets on horse racing to the secretary of the club holding the meeting, and to permit the publications of dividends. It had been asserted that the Bill if carried .would increase gambling. This, he contended, would not be so. It would only enable people to use a legalized form of betting. He quoted figures showing the number of prosecutions and convictions for bookmaking. These, he said, demonstrated that betting was going on and it was preferable that the Government and racing clubs should get any benefit accruing from the practice. There was the business side of racing and that was the side which concerned the employment of jockeys and trainers. If money continued to go into the hands of bookmakers instead of on to the totalisator, it would endanger the livelihood of these men. Against Interests of True Sport. Mr H. T. Armstrong (L., Christchurch East), said he believed that the Bill was against the interests of true sport. He was as fond of racing as anyone else and he liked, when he could afford it, to invest money on the totalisator. He claimed, however, that he already had all the facilities that he wanted to invest money on the totalisator. He could not see how the passing of legislation would possibly have the effect of decreasing transactions with bookmakers who flourished in other countries where all the rights contained in the Bill already existed. The ability to telegraph money to the totalisator would enable bookmakers to lay off some of their business and he believed that the facility would be utilized bv them more than by anyone else. Furthermore, all those people who were barred from attending racecourses would be able to telegraph bets and the same action would be possible to people under 21 years of age who were at present debarred from betting on the totalisator. It would not be to the advantage of the community if every telegraph office in the country were turned into an agency for the totalisator. This country had previously, with disastrous results, had an experience of the very provisions that were contained in the Bill. It would increase the inducement to people to bet and thousands who did not bef it the present time, would begin to do so. The government of the late Sir Joseph Ward had years ago taken away the right to telegraph bets and no Government would dare to restore it. Surely the House was not going to permit a private member to restore it. Mr Armstrong added that it would be preferable to license bookmakers who were already carrying on business in this country without paying anything for the privilege. It seemed to be impossible to suppress bookmaking. If the Bill went through there would be a charge of 2/- on each telegram to a racecourse. This would not be an inducement to people to bet on the machine instead of with the bookmaker. Impassible to end Bookmaking. Mr R. A. Wright (R., Wellington Suburbs) agreed that it would be impossible to put an end to bookmaking. He was in no way opposed to horse racing, but he believed that it should be regulated. If there were no control of any kind it would simply run to extremes. The question was how far Parliament should go to regulate betting. The fundamental difference between the supporters and opponents of the Bill related to the telegraphing of bets. He argued that such a course would be to the detriment of the young men and young women of New Zealand. Temptation would be put in the way of these people before their characters were properly formed. When they realized that they could telegraph bets to the totalisator in a perfectly legal way there would be an inducement to gamble that did not exist previously. Referring to the proposal to legalize the publication of dividends, Mr Wright said that such a step would “create a thirst” for betting. People reading of big dividends would be tempted where previously they would not have been interested. Mr W. J. Broadfoot (U., Waitomo)- said that during last year there had been a hundred and one applications from religious bodies for permission to hold art unions. # The principle was the same as betting on horse racing. He said that if people were permitted to telegraph bets they were likely to be satisfied with the investment of one pound whereas if they attended the meeting they might be induced to bet on every race, “Tip-toeing Round the Corner.” Referring to the publication of dividends, Mr Broadfoot asked why the public should not be told these details openly. Those who wanted to know would find out in any case by tip-toeing round the corner to the bookmaker. Mr Broadfoot approved of the principle of a Stale lottery which* he said, was likely to take the money from the hands of bookmakers. He intended, when the Bill was in committee, to move an amendment providing for a State lottery in New Zealand. Mr W. D. Lysnar (R., Gisborne) said that he hud come to the conclusion that betting was inherent in our British constitution. The Britisher was prepared to back his opinion with his money. He had been surprised by the extent of interest in betting even in the backblocks, and he was satisfied that it was useless to try and continue with a law that was driving this betting underground. It was a wrong thing to allow to remain on the statute book a law that was being openly defied. . It tended to bring all laws into disrespect. He contended that it was a bogey to argue that the provisions of the Bill would increase facilities for betting which would go on in any case. It was far better that it should be brought into the open. He supported the suggestion that there should be a State lottery in New Zealand. Mr W. E. Parry (L., Auckland Central) said it appeared that the State had achieved very little success in an attempt to suppress the bookmaker. Therefore, it seemed desirable that there should be an attempt at some reasonable control. This would be preferable to driving the business underground as it was to-day. He believed that the totalisator had been responsible for a large amount of betting in this country today. It obliged people to bet to. the extent of ten shillings per race whereas they could previously have bet two or three shillings with the bookmaker. He asserted that he knew of people who were simply waiting for the Bill to be passed before decided to set up in business as bookmakers. It would be nonsense to arguo that the Bill would reduce business with bookmakers. Mr T. Makitanara (U., Southern Maori) X said that it was only hyprocrisy to endeavour to stop gambling and he would move an amendment later with the object of legalizing the bookmaker. The idea of previous legislation had been to eradicate bookmakers, but now they were stronger than ever. The Act had created sentiment towards the bookmaker and there was no reason why a license should not be collected from him, especially as the country was in need of revenue. Racing’s Damaging Effect. Mr F. Langstone (L., Waimarino) said he regretted that the Bill had been brought forward when there were so many more im-

portant subjects to be considered. No sport had a more damaging eSect on human beings than racing and the present Bill woulu simply turn post offices into totalisator shops. He believed that it would also encourage bookmakers! Mr J. O’Brien (L., Westland) said he thought that some amendment to the gaming legislation was necessary. He could not see any reason, for instance, why euchre halls should not be licensed so long as they are not conducted for the financial benefit of those controlling them. He believed it would be better to publish dividends and telegraph bets than to allow the business to continue in an underground manner. Mr R. Semple (L., Wellington East) opposed the Bill and declared that there were more urgent problems requiring the attention of the House at the present time. Mr H. E. Holland said he hoped that the Bill would go past the second reading. There were a number of amendments necessary in the gaming legislation. Foi instance, he objected to the power of the Racing Conference in being able to insist on apprentices contracting themselves beyond the scope of the Arbitration Court. Mr Holland said he had heard some remarkable views on the subject of publication of dividends. If it was wrong to publish dividends in the newspaper, it was wrong to publish them on the racecourse. The position at present was that thousands of pedfiie saw dividends on the racecourse. Figures were cabled to Australia and subsequently entered New Zealand in Australian newspapers. Mr Holland also supported the proposal to telegraph bets io the totalisator.

Mr H. Holland (R., Christchurch North) strongly opposed the Bill on the ground that it would increase gambling. The debate was interrupted by the rising of the House at 10.30 p.m. till 10,30 a.m. to-morrow.