GAMING BILL

Taranaki Daily News, 26 September 1930, Page 9

GAMING BILL

TELEGRAPHING OF BETS PUBLICATION OF DIVIDENDS APPLAUSE GREETS MOVER SHARP DIVISION OF VIEWS By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. On rising to move the second reading of the Gaming Act Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives to-night Mr. K. S.| Williams (Bay of Plenty, Reform) was greeted with'applause. Mr. Williams said the Bill contained only two provisions—to enable people to telegraph bets on horse racing to the secretary of a club holding a meeting, and to permit the publication of dividends. It had been assorted that the Bill if carried would increase gambling. This he contended would not be so. It would only enable people to use the legalised 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 the 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 the bookmakers instead of on to the totalisator it would endanger the livelihood of these men. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East, Labour) said he believed 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 in,vest 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. Ability to wire money to the totalisator would enable bookmakers to lay off some of their business, and he believed the facility would be utilised by 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 country if every telegraph office in the country were turned into an agency for the totalisator. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE. This country had previously, with disastrous results, had 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 bet at 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 the country without paying anything for the privilege. It seemed to be impossible to suppress bookmaking. If the Bill went through tl ere would be a charge of 2s on each telegram to the racecourse.' This would not be an inducement to people to bet on the machine instead of with the bookmaker. Mr. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs, Reform) agreed that it would be impossible to put an end to bookmaking. He was in no way opposed to horse racing, but he believed 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 diff- ence between the supporters and the opponents of the Bill related to telegraphing 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 realised they could telegraph bets to the totalisator in a perfectly legal way there would be an inducement to gamble, that did not exist preReferring to the, proposal to legalise the publication of dividends Mr. Wright , said 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. ART UNION COMPARISON. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Waitomo, United) said that during the last year there had been a hundred and one applications from religipus bodies for permission to hold art unions. The principle was the same as betting on horse racing. If people were permitted to telegraph bets they were likely to be satisfied with the investment of £l, whereas if they attended a meeting they might be induced to bet on every race. . 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 a bookmaker. Mr. Broadfoot approved of the principle of a State lottery, which he said was likely' to take money from the hands of the 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 (Gisborne, ’lndependent Reform) said he had come to the conclusion that betting was inherent in the British constitution. The Briton was prepared to back his opinion with, his money. He had been surprised by the extend of the interest in betting, even in the backblocks, and he was satisfied it was useless to try to 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 tho 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 there should be a State lottery in New Zealand. Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central, Labour) said it appeared the State had achieved very little success in the 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 business underground as it was to-day. He believed the totalisator had been responsible for a large amount of betting in the country. To-day it obliged people to bet to the extent of 10s per race, whereas they could previously have bet 2s or 3s with a bookmaker. He asserted that he knew of people who were simply waiting for the Bill to be passed before deciding to set up in business as bookmakers. It was nonsense to argue that the Bill would reduce business with, bookmakers.