GAMING AMENDMENT BILL

Taranaki Daily News, 21 October 1933, Page 9

GAMING AMENDMENT BILL

DEBATE OPENED IN HOUSE THE TELEGRAPHING OF BETTING. PUBLICATION OF DIVIDENDS. MR. HEALY’S OPENING ARGUMENTBy Telegraph—Press. Association, Wellington, Last Night. Moving in the House pf Representatives to-day the second reading of the Gaming Amendment Bill, which proposes to permit the telegraphing of bets to the totalizator, the introduction of a double totalisator and the publication of dividends, Mr. E. F. Healy (Cp., Wairau) said he was astounded that at a time when taxation was so high no attempt was being made to employ this means of raising revenue without cost to the Government. Tens of thousands of sporting people, proceeded Mr. Healy, were demanding the concessions which the Bill would confer. Wonderful facilities had been provided throughout the Dominion to encourage the breeding of thoroughbreds, yet a number of small racing clubs were in danger of going out of existence because of the lack pf revenue. He personally had been connected was racing since 1889. It was 43 years since he had first owned and raced horses, and he had held every office in racing clubs. He therefore considered he was able to speak with some knowledge on the subject matter of the Bill, "No-one respects more than I do all . the churches and those who attend them,” Mr. Healy said. “I am not only a racing man but I am also a churchman and I stand four square for this Bill.” It looked as though there was a "holy alliance” between the churches and illegal bettors in opposition to the measure, he said. .The present law suited the people who laid odds illegally. The Bill would turn gambling into legal channels and reduce it to a great extent because the totalisator never gave credit, never asked for bets and never made mistakes. In his opinion the churches should join with the supporters of the Bill in endeavouring to eliminate illegal betting. , ■ i EIGHT MILLIONS-TAXATION. Mr. Healy said that from 1918-19 to date approximately £108,000,000 had passed through the totalisator in New Zealand and the racing revenue to the Treasury had amounted to nearly • £8,000,000. This revenue would be considerably increased if the Bill was passed. Mr. Healy referred to the freedom of New Zealand racecourses from undesirable aspects experienced overseas and went on to mention tipsters he had met on racecourses in the United Mr. A. J. Stallworthy (Co., Eden) interjected: Did you go to the Mexico tscejs? ’ Mr. Healy: No, ,1 wasn’t game to go where 1 Phar Lap lost his life. Referring to the publication of dividens Mr. Healy said everyone could be proud of the Press of New Zealand, yet he believed it was the only Press in the world that was prevented from publishing dividends. Mr. Healy said he was prepared to. abide by the majority vote of the House as to 'whether the Bill should be passed into law. All he asked of “opponents was that it should be given a fair run and should be allowed go to

the vote. Mr. W. J. Jordan (Lab., Manakau) said Carbine, -had been bred in his district and he was prepared to admit there was something very fine about watching a horse race, but those who were enthusiastic about the sport should, be prepared to pay for it. One would have expected the Bill would have provided better facilities for people to gather together to see these fine displays of sportsmanship, but on the contrary it was making it easier for people to put money on a horse without seeing the race. Was it sportsmanship to go into a telephone box and say “I will put my week’s wages on that horse.” “DISCOURAGES ATTENDANCES." Mr.. A. Harris (Co., Waitemata): They are doing that now. Mr. Jordan: Then why the Bill? Mr. Harris: They are riot putting it on the totalisator.' Mr. Jordan said the Bill discouraged attendance at races And made it easier for people to bet without going to the course. Mr. Healy had mentioned that petitions signed by over 7000 people hadsupported the Bill, but there had been petitions with over 18,000 signatures, favouring the licensing of bookmakers. This argument really counted for nothing. There might be 7000 in favour of the Bill and 70,000 against it. Mr., Healy had referred, .to revenue from horse racing. Mr. Jordan said he, wondered how much had been obtained, in revenue in the last ten years from; fines for drunkenness. Should Parliament grant more facilities for drunkenness in order to increase revenue from fines? Mr. Jordan suggested that if the Bill became law a business agent of . the post office would be bound to encourage betting by telegraph. One could imagine a postmaster standing out on the street trying to induce the people to send telegrams. He would say, “Roll up, roll up, this horse is bound to win; it carried 7.6 last time arid is carrying. 7.3 today with Richards or Donoghue up! Come and make your bets” Surely there were enough gambling facilities already without adding any more. Mr. Harris said the Bill would make horse racing and betting cleaner. Bookmakers had been the ruin of many young men in New Zealand. They were the greatest opponents of the Bill because they knew it would reduce their business. ■ Mr. F. W. Schramm (Lab., Auckland East) said there was no need for a double totalisator. Telegraphing bets had led to the ruin of many good men in the past and would'do so' again,if the Bill became law. Mr. R. W. Hawke (Co., Kaiapoi) said he was opposed to granting facilities for gambling in New Zealand. The debate was interrupted by the rising of the house at 5.30 and was set down for resumption next Wednesday.