GAMING BILL.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 2031, 18 August 1920, Page 9

GAMING BILL.

INTERESTING STAGE. HOUSES IN DISAGREEMENT. GOVERNMENT OUT-VOTED. lFrom Our Own Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, August 17. An interesting stage has been reached with regard to the Gaming Amendment Bill, which, after it left the House of Representatives, was drastically amended by the Legislative Council. To-day, the House decided to disagree with the principal amendments made in the Council. Notwithstanding that the Government proposed to agree with them, and that Ministers voted accordingly on the division, the House outvoted the Government by 30 votes to 24 on the proposals to legalise the publication of dividends and the telegraphing of totalisator bets to the course. In the absence of the Hon. G. J. Anderson (Minister of Internal Affairs), the Hon. Sir William Herries took charge of the Bill. In explaining the amendments made in another place, he especially mentioned the new clauses proposing to legalise the publication of dividends and the telegraphing of totalisator bets to the secretary of the racing club concerned, but to no other person, on the course. Mr L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) What is the virtue of making it to the secretary only?

Sir William Herries: It keeps it to one man. This is one of the best wavs to combat the bookmaker. Mr Isitt: And to encourage the "tote-shep"! « Sir William Herries: If the hon. member prefers the bookmaker to the totalisator, he can oppose this. He added that the main other proposed amendment —and the only one with which he wished to disagree—was that to limit winter programmes (May to August inclusive) to seven races. He would ask for a conference upon that, but meanwhile he moved: — That the amendments made in the Legislative Council be agreed to, with that one exception. Mr H. E. Holland (Buller) objected that the amendment reinstating summary conviction for bookmaking gave the Stipendiary Magistrate power to inflict a sentence of two years' imprisonment. In most cases' where a defendant agreed to be dealt with summarily, he knew that his sentence could not be more than a short term. This power to imprison for two yeavs was too great a power to put into the hands of a Stipendiarv Magistrate. He asked that the penalty be reduced to six months. The defendant would still have the right to be tried by jury, but it might suit his pocket and conditions better to be tried summarily. Mr T. M. Wilford (Hutt) said that the higher penalty would make a man elect to be tried by jury. It did not cost anything to go to a jury, but only to engage counsel to argue before that jury. "Running to Seed On Sport." Mr G. Mitchell (Wellington South) took exception to the new clause permitting the telegraphing of bets to the course. As it was, the country was "running to seed" in connection with its sports and pleasures, and it was time that they got down to work. He claimed that the Post Office was never intended as,a facility for betting. * Mr L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) said that the agreement or disagreement with these amendments would determine whether or not there Avas political morality in the House. .He had regarded the original Bill as an honest attempt to check gambling; but the position now was that the Upper House had transformed it into a measure to assist gambling. The one item of homoeopathic reform which the Upper House proposed—that clause limiting the number of races in any one day—was being opposed by the Minister temporarily in charge of the Bill.

To Popularise Gambling. The purpose of asking that the dividends should be published could only be the one purpose of advertising the biff dividends paid, and so popularising gambling. Further, it was now proposed to allow belting through the telegraph, although for years it had been the policy of,the 'Government to discourage betting through the postal and telegraph services. As it was, in the past eight years, a total of £35,000,000 had been put through the totalizator in New Zealand, notwithstanding that half of that period had been War years, when they were supposed to be practising economy. The publicwould watch very carefully the attitude which the Prime Minister would take up on this question, and the great majority of the right lion, gentleman's supporters were expecting him to use his influence as head of the Government to stop any further weakening of this Bill. The various amendments proposed represented a callous and barefaced attempt on the part of the racing clubs—in absolute indifference as to what the moral and financial effect niight be upon the bulk of Ihe people —to establish what the Government, for years past, had condemned and discouraged—betting on races at a

distance, through the medium of the machinery provided by the Govern* ment—the postal and telegraph services. An Amendment Moved. Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said that the Government must itself take the responsibility for these amendments, which went counter to the (jactrine of economy which the ITime Minister had been preaching for months past.* He moved an amendment by way of addition to the motion, to the effect that the clauses proposing to legalise the publication of dividends and the telegraphing of bets also be disagreed with. Mr \V. 1). Lysnar (Gisborne) said that the ban upon the telegraphing of bets had driven the betting tendencies of the people underground. The betting spirit would never be eliminated, and the best that could be done was to encourage it out into the open. Mr J. P. Luke (Wellington North) was opposed to the telegraphing of bets. The proposed amendment to the Bill was putting the secretary of the racing club in the position of a bookmaker, which' was not a right thing. A Natural Corollary. Speaking to the amendment, the Hon. Sir Win. Herries said that the opening of the telegraph to totalisator bets was the natural corollary to the attempt to eliminate the bookmaker. If the telegraph were not so opened, the bookmaker would still have opportunity for a thriving .calling, and he would certainly follow that calling, and take the risk of the jury's finding. If a man kept a "tote-shop" he would practically be a .bookmaker, and he would

come within the scope oftfhc Act. The only way to effectively crush the bookmaker was to take away his monopoly of "bff-the-course" betting. Athletic Sports Threatened! It was desirable to eliminate the bookmaker in the interests not only of racing, but of athletic sports as well, for the "bookie" was invading their domain. If the House held up too many of these amendments, there might be trouble with the Upper House. . , Mr A. 1). McLeod (Wairarapa) said that the bookmaker lived to-day by the requirements of the people seeking bets; and unless some legitimate outlet was provided for the betting of those people, the "bookie" would still thrive. It had been stated that £35,000,000 had gone through the totalisator in eight years. Probably an equal amount had passed through the hands of the bookmakers. He thought that the Minister would have been wise to have agreed to all the amendments. As a horse-owner and a racing man, he believed seven to be a suiiicient number of races for one day, with only six in the winter months. Credit Betting Gone. i Mr W. S. Glenn (Rangitikei) pointed out there would be no credit betting over the telegraph. There was credit betting with the bookmakers, and that made all the difference. Mr L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) asked if the bookmaker would not continue to thrive on the credit beiling. Was not the whole purpose of the proposed amendments to direct the whole of the gambling profits into the pockets of the racing clubs and the trotting clubs? ' He maintained that the establishment of the totalisator had done even more harm than the bookmakers would in an equal period of time. (Ohl Oh!) Going One Better.

Mr A. S. Malcolm (Clutha) was of opinion that, if they increased the facilities for gambling, they would increase the betting and, what was worse, they would educate the general public'upon such matters. There were mauv who would not think of betting with the "bookie" who would invest on such a "respectable" medium of gambling as the totalisator. No matter what they did, the bookmaker would always go one better, and all the time that they were trving to catch him up they were weaving the gambling fabric wider and wider. He felt that, had the Minister of Internal Affairs been able to be in his place, he would have opposed the amendments made in another place. He had no fear of the Bill being dropped by the other Chamber if the amendments were not agreed to. The other Chamber would be only too glad to get the Bill as it had originally stood. Mr \V. A. Yeitch (Wanganm) warned the racing clubs that they had better step warily, else the majority of hon. members might turn against them. The representatives of the clubs were taking up an altogether too selfish attitude. Mr E. Newman (Manawatu) was of opinion that, if they permitted bets to be telegraphed, they would increase the amount of gambling in the. country. To Benefit the Clubs. Mr W, E. Parry (Auckland Central) gave expression to some Labour views as to the want of consistency on the part of those who opposed gambling on horse-racing,

but were in favour of gambling on the stock exchange, in land and in the foodstuffs of the people. He believed that these additional clauses had been framed with the object of taking away the bookmakers business and giving it to the racing clubs. Mr E. N. Bartram (Grey Lynn) declared that the gambling spirit was the outcome of the present economic conditions. He would entitled this: "A Bill for the Fattening of the Fat" —that was to say, a Bill to grab the bookmaker's business and bestow the swag upon the racing clubs. Government Defeated. On a division being taken, Mr McCombs's amendment was carried by 30 votes to 24, the lists being:— For the Amendment (30). Bartram McOombs Burnett Malcolm * i'.raigie Mitchell Dickson, J. M. Newman, A. K. Fdie Newman, E. Frnser Ngata Hamilton, J. R. Parry Hanan Seddon Hawken Sidey Holland Stathnm Horn Stewart Howard Sullivan Hudson Sykes isitt yr 1 ? 0 ?. Luke Wright Against the Amendment (24). Atmore McLcod Bollard Massey Coates Nash Fi e )j Nosworthy Forties • JP*™ . Glenn Poland Guthrie Pomare Henare W«"l, .. „ „ Herries sU°'i' >S ' v* wr H * Hockly Bh( ?i es '„ T U V - Lysnar Smith, H. W. McCullum WUlord The House next divided on the question that the remaining amendments made by the Legislative Coun-

cil he agreed to. The principal one •f these—and that on which Labour called for a division —was that providing for the summary treatment of offenders. This was accepted by 46 votes to eight, the noes being Messrs Bartram, Frascr, Holland, Lysnar, McCallum, Parry, Sullivan and Howard. Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) vqted with the ayes. The present position is that the House of Representatives has disagreed with the following amendments that were proposed by the Legislative Council: — (a) That the publication of dividends be permitted. (b) That it be legal to telegraph to the secretary of a racing club, on the course, money for investment on the totalisator. (c) That not more than seven races be included in any winter programme. Messrs G. Witty and J. McCombs and the Hon. Sir William Herries have been appointed a committee to draw up reasons for disagreeing.