NEW ZEALAND’S GAMING LAWS

Southland Times, Issue 25546, 14 December 1944, Page 3

NEW ZEALAND’S GAMING LAWS

SETTING-UP OF ROYAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDED BY HOUSE (P.A.) WELLINGTON, December 13. Strong expressions of opinion that the gaming laws are at variance with public opinion, particularly concerning the illegality of betting with bookmakers, were forthcoming from both sides of the House of Representatives after the report of the A to L Committee on several petitions which had been presented asking for a review of the sentence on Albert Leonard Albertson, a Christchurch bookmaker, who was recently sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. The chairman, Mr A. S. Richards (Lab., Roskill) said the committee had no recommendation to make concerning Albertson, but was of opinion that the anomalies and inconsistencies in the gaming laws and their administration were such as to call for an immediate and thorough investigation. With that object in view it recommended that a Royal Commission be set up to inquire into and report upon the whole matter. The House adopted the report.

Miss M. B. Howard (Lab., Christchurch East), thanking the committee for dealing with the petitions before the House rose, “so that this man might at least be out of his misery,” said the petitions had at least borne some fruit if the committee’s recommendations were carried out.

law everyone betting with a bookmaker did so illegally, while anyone betting on a totalizator was highly moral. If a hardened criminal committed an offence he might be sentenced to a few months’ imprisonment, but this man, for committing an offence against a law which was at definite variance with public opinion, received a year. Mr McKeen said he did not blame the magistrate or the judge concerned. The trouble was that past Governments had refused to face up to the issue. The fact that 100 per cent, unanimity could not be expected in the country should not prevent a reform of the gaming law. Social security had not been approved 100 per cent., but it was one of the greatest pieces of legislation enacted in the Dominion. It was 33 years since bookmakers were declared illegal. POSITION OF BETTORS Why the present insistence on prosecuting them? asked Mr McKeen. To be consistent, the police should prosecute all persons making a bet with a bookmaker. He understood the police in many cases had lists of such people. The law was absolutely at variance with public opinion. It would be quite impossible to suppress gambling. Even if the totalizator were abolished there would still be betting on racehorses. Bookmakers were, in his experience, highly respectable members of the community, men who would not take a penny from anybody illegally. They were a social acquisition. Provided they paid their just share of their revenue to the State he thought they should be registered. He had been told that if this were to come, a revenue of between £1,500,000 and £2,000,000 would become available. “I think it is time the politicians of this country ceased keeping their heads buried in the sand and did something to remedy the position,” said Mr McKeen. “There are three things which the politicians have refused to deal courageously with—religion, the licensing question and the gambling laws. Mr W. J. Polson (Nat., Stratford): Are you pointing that out to your own Government? Mr McKeen: I wish they would realize it. I am trying to persuade them. An Opposition voice: I think the Prime Minister is convinced now. CONSULTATION IN TASMANIA NEW ZEALANDERS’ PRIZES Mr H. T. Morton, (Nat., Waitemata), drew attention to the large prizes won by New Zealanders in a Tasmanian consultation. He said that between February and August this year New Zealanders had won £71,5C0 in major prizes. This indicated a great amount of gambling, and he thought we should have our own State lottery, so New Zealand could derive the revenue, instead of exporting it. Unlike the three previous speakers, who had said that they personally did not gamble, he liked a gamble and so did most people. Mr F. Hackett (Lab., Grey Lynn) said the sentences on bookmakers were highly inconsistent. Different men with the same record suffered widely differing penalties. The present law lacked general public support. Mr F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino) said it almost seemed as if the police picked out a few here and there to prosecute. There were various forms of gambling going on that were illegal, and he suggested that the whole matter needed a careful investigation. He said that he did not expect much result. The Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Parry, said the best thing the Government could do was to set up a commission as recommended so that the matter could be sifted from end to end. The Minister of Works, Mr Semple, said that so long as there were New Zealanders there would be gambling and any law to prevent gambling would merely drive it underground. They could not destroy the evil, if it was an evil, so the best thing to do was to control it in such a way that it would do the minimum harm.

Mr R. M. Algie (Nat., Remuera) said the committee could perhaps, if that had been within its province, recommended that bookmaking be declared an “essential industry.” The committee had been divided whether a recommendation should be made to the Government concerning Albertson, but all had concurred that the Government should be asked to undertake an immediate investigation of the gaming law and its administration. One legal authority laid it down that before any act was made a crime it should be condemned by the current opinion of the people. Betting was not condemned by the current feeling of our community. It would not be right to try to convince the man in the street that it was illegal to make a bet with a bookmaker when he could walk across the street and make a bet with a machine, which would be legal, nor could the man in the street, knowing his Government derived revenue from gambling, be expected to believe that the Government would take revenue from a criminal act. INCONSISTENT LEGISLATION Our gambling legislation was too full of inconsistencies, said Mr Algie. For instance, art unions were legal, while betting with a bookmaker was not. Some proper body with authority and ability, whether a royal commission or a parliamentary committee, should be set up to recommend legislative reform which would correct abuses, produce a forward piece of reform and educate the outlook of the people. CONFLICTING OPINIONS IN DOMINION PRIME MINISTER’S VIEW The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, said it was supreme optimism to expect that any commission could harmonize all the conflicting opinions on this matter, as had been proved often in the past experience of members of Parliament of long standing. Whether or not the laws conformed to public opinion, they had to be upheld while they remained on the Statute Book. If the law was to be reformed, a Royal Commission was quite a good idea. An Opposition voice: What about the licensing commission? Mr Fraser: It will get under way quite soon now. Mr Fraser said he could not believe a Royal Commission would solve the whole problem regarding the gaming law. The only country he knew which seemed to have straightened out the matter was South Australia, which had a State monopoly of betting facilities. No doubt the commission would hear strong opinions in support of that system for New Zealand and strong opinions against it. There would be strong opinions, too, for and against the licensing of bookmakers. The strongest opponent of the licensing of bookmakers he had known was a bookmaker. A Voice: How did you meet him? Mr Fraser: He had reformed and was one of the most striking characters in this country. OPPOSITION TO.GAMBLING The Prime Minister warned the members that they could not treat this matter lightly, because there were strong opinions against gambling and all its ramifications. He had never heard of anyone being ruined by art unions, but it might not be the same with other forms of gambling. He thought that, taken by. and large, the suggestion of a Royal Commission which would present the problem to the House—but not solve it—was a good one. Mr R. McKeen (Lab., Wellington South) expressed disappointment concerning the first section of the committee’s report. He had never known a more barbarous sentence than that imposced on Albertson. According to the

After other members had spoken the report was adopted.