The Southland Times FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1944. The Laws Against Betting

Southland Times, Issue 25547, 15 December 1944, Page 4

The Southland Times FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1944. The Laws Against Betting

THE HOUSE of Representatives has at last been able to admit the existence of anomalies and inconsistencies in the gaming laws. Wednesday’s discussion was a welcome break in the silence which too long has been lying thickly over a controversial subject. The silence was broken by a prison sentence passed on the Christchurch bookmaker, Albert Leonard Albertson. This event appears to have disturbed the political conscience. Albertson is in gaol because he broke a law which is being broken every day, without any legal consequences, by thousands of persons who regard themselves as honest citizens. His offence has become so venial that others who still practise his calling are grouped within their own organization, with the full knowledge of the responsible authorities. What would happen if it became known that a league of housebreakers had been established in New Zealand? Swift and drastic would be the action taken by the police. It may be said that there can be no comparison between burgling and bookmaking; and this, in general, is true. But they have one thing in common: they are forbidden by law. Moreover, the gaming laws are so strictly devised that they are made applicable to both parties to a betting transaction. The man who offers, and the man who accepts, a racing wager, are equally culpable. In practice, however, the gaming laws are discriminatory; they are enforced with a spasmodic severity against the bookmaker, and —with very rare exceptions—are not enforced against his client. As soon as discrimination becomes an acknowledged fact, it can no longer be said that a law is just. Albertson is in gaol for 12 months while his fellow “sportsmen” escape with the payment of occasional fines that have come to be treated as unofficial licence fees. This is not an exaggeration: the proof can be found in official procedure. A few weeks ago it was explained in a courtroom that a “sportsman’s” books were regularly inspected by officers from the taxation department, and that he had actually been complimented on the way his transactions were recorded. It can be said, therefore, that bookmaking is not even underground. When a point has been reached where condonation is not confined merely to the man in the street, but extends to State departments, any further delay in the revision of the gaming laws is dangerous and immoral. It is dangerous because the law is being made ridiculous, and it is immoral because it permits an individual to suffer for the sins of the community. Opinion and Morals

Albertson’s sentence may ultimately bring good, since it may force the Government to take remedial action. But this prospect, pleasing though it may be to the people, will bring no solace to the man himself. There is obviously an urgent need for reform when it is possible for a law that is falling into disuse, undei - the sheer weight of public and official opinion, to be enforced with a sudden severity against an individual whose guilt is no greater than that of other citizens who are allowed to remain free—not because they cannot be detected, but because no action is taken against them. On these grounds alone, the petition for a review of Albertson’s sentence was justified; and the committee which studied the petition showed a complete lack of moral courage in failing to make any recommendation. Something has been gained, no doubt, by obtaining the House’s approval for the setting up of a Royal Commission. But that means more delay, and possibly a gradual forgetfulness. Parliament knows perfectly well that the gaming laws are obsolete. There is no reason why the subject could not be examined by a select committee, yvhose report could then be given the fullest discussion as a preliminary to legislative action. The Prime Minister pointed out that the matter could not be treated lightly, “because there are strong opinions against gambling and all its ramifications.” This may be true, and those who deplore (with justification) the widespread addiction to gambling are free to use all the.influence at their disposal to improve the moral tone of the community. What moral value, however, can be claimed for the present system? If betting is an evil, the State has no right to sanction it in any form. But the State permits betting through the totalizator, and takes handsome profits from it. Clearly, therefore, betting is not regarded as an evil. The only point at issue is whether’ it should be permitted off the racecourse as well as on it. As the law stands today, bookmaking is illegal. But the people refuse to accept this prohibition. Revision of the gaming laws would therefore not be a concession to vice, since betting is legalized under certain conditions, but a concession to a public opinion so strong that it is bringing the law into contempt. The moral consequences of a continued neglect will be far more dangerous than gambling itself. If it were merely the inveterate gambler (ruining himself and his family) who evaded the law, there would be an unanswerable case for a stricter control. But the evasion is shared by ordinary citizens in large numbers—by the man next door, the housewife and the tradesman, the worker at his bench and the member of a learned profession. If the law cannot stop them, it is obviously clashing with the moral convictions of the people. To leave it unchanged is to create a disharmony between laws and morals which must cause injustice, hypocrisy, and an ultimate weakness at the foundations of public order.