WAR ON BOOKMAKERS.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 16796, 21 July 1920, Page 4

WAR ON BOOKMAKERS.

THE “DOUBLE” TOTALISATOR. PUBLICATION OF DIVIDENDS. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, July 20. 1 In the House of Representatives this afternoon, in moving the second reading of the Gaming Act Amendment Bill, the Hon. G. J. Anderson said it was apparent that the influence of bookmakers had a prejudicial effect on horso racing, and the only thing to be done 1 was to make the penalty for bookmahing more severe. Some bookmaKers were unscrupulous in, dealing with clients. < The Minister road circulars showing how bookmakers frorc preparing to evade the regulations to prevent the transmission of betting telegrams. The Government was going to have a trial of strength with bookmakers, and it was hoped to have the support of the House. The Minister believed that many evils arose from betting with bookmakers, who sometimes extended credit, while totalisator transactions wore on a cash basis. ' Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) said ho would move in committee an additional clause to conserve tiro , in-, torests of jockeys and others employed in racing. He said the Hill appeared to bo designed to monopolise hotting by restricting it to-the totalisator. Mr. Hunter (Waipawa) said that if the Minister would agree to legalise a “double” totalisator, and authorise the publication of dividends in the news-' papers, the bookmakers’ occupation would be gone. Mr. Wilfonl said ho proposed to move the deletion of a section in the main Act which prevented money being telegraphed to secretaries of racing clubs for investment on the machine. When the House resumed in theevening, Mr. Newman (Manawatu) congratulated the Government on the proposals in the Bill, which were calculated to eliminate the bookmaker, whom, he contrasted unfavourably with the totalisator. Mr. Isitt said the Bill was the best measure ever brought into the House for the elimination of the bookmaker, and it would test the honesty of racing men as to whether they really wished to purify the sport of racing. Concluding, -Mr. Isitt characterised the advocacy of tjie “double” totalisator as pure hypocrisy. It would not eliminate bookmakers, and was not intended to. Mr. Witty said ho would give the Bill his qualified support, as ho thought it might do good, hut ho would favour the proposal to legalise the “double” totalisator.

Mr. Glenn would support the Bill so far as it calculated to abolish the bookmaker. As a sport ho favoured the reinstatement of tho “double” totalisator.

Mr. M'Lood said ho doubted if the Bill would do much to abolish the bookmaker. The only thing to do that was to provide people with other and ample facilities for belting. Ho therefore favoured the "double” totalisator.

Mr. Holland condemned tho proposal in the Bill which took away from bookmakers tho right to bet,, while preserving that right to others. Mr. Campbell favoured the publication of totalisator dividends in tho press, as people who wanted to. know the odds were driven into tho arms of the bookmaker. Mr. M'Combs said there was no high motive behind the effort to get rid of tho bookmaker. It was being done simply to increase the profits of racing clubs through the totalisator. He considered this was a question which should be settled by the people, and to tho motion that tho Bill lie read a second time ho moved an amendment that it be a recommendation to -the Government to take a referendum on tho questions of tho abolition of the bookmaker and the ab<Hition of tho totalisator. Tho amendment was not debated, and, on a division, it was lost by *l9 votes to 16. The Bill was then read a second time on the voices.