THE GAMING LAW

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 241, 12 October 1931, Page 8

THE GAMING LAW

CONTROL OF BOOKMAKERS LICENSING SYSTEM URGED BILL DOOMED TO FAILURE WELLINGTON, Oet. 10. When the Gaming Amendment Bill was before the House of Representatives last night, the Speaker stated he would have to ru e the measure out of order on the ground that it involved an appropriation. Opportunity was afforded, however, fur members to express their views during thu second reading debate on the Bill. Mr 11. T. Armstrong (Labour —Christ churcn East) said thu main object of the Bill was to register and control a certain number of bookmakers who were operating at present. It was well known that New Zealand was one of the few •countries in the British Empire where the business of bookmaking was illegal, but notwithstanding that fact, it was also very well known that New Zealand had more bookmakers in proportion to its population than, perhaps, any other country in tho world. New Zealand had been trying for 20 years to suppress bookmaking, but the business was flourishing more strongly now than ever before. Ho submitted that if bookmakers could not be suppressed, the next best thing was to control and tax them. Legislation for 20 Years. Mr A. J. Stall worthy (Eden;: Do you icul.y believe it is impossible to suppress them‘J Mr Armstrong: Well, we have been endeavouring to suppress tnem by law for 20 years. As lung us racing continues, so long will bookmaking continue. Mr Armstrong said something should bo done immediately to regulate the business. The bookmaker or his agent was operating in every workshop and factory. In many tobacconists’ shops and nearly all leading hotels one found the bookmaker or his representative. Mr E. Langstonc (Labour —Waiuiarino): What about gentlemen’s clubs I Mr Armstrong: ”es, in gentlemen’s clubs and all s. rt:, of places, and they are betting with boys serving as apprentices a.I because there is no mtrol. It was impossible to calculate t ie extent of the bookmaking business, said Mr Armstrong, but it had been reliably estimated that the turnover would amount to £3,250,000 a year. He submitted a business of this size should contribute to the revenue of the country and to the upkeep of the sport on which it fattened, lie wanted to put out of business at least four-fifths of the number and to license and control the rest of them. The great majority of racing clubs at present were on the verge of The totalisator returns had fallen heavily and as the business of the totalisator shrunk, that of the bookmaker increased in proportion. Propzscd Control Board. The BiL proposed that bookmaking should be controlled by a board wfiica would have tho sole right to decide the number of bookmakers and what bookmakers should be licensed. BooKniakers would have to pay an annual lee of £290 and would nave to provide a ndelity guarantee of £lOOO. They wuuid be aule to bet on racecourses subject to conditions laid down by racing c.ubs. That was to say, a club wliicn objected to bookmakers need not allow them to operate ou its course. The Bill proposed to license cicrks ou the payment of a fee lesser than the amount paid by bookmakers. Every betting transaction would have to be made ou a ticket, which would be issued by the Internal Affairs Department and on which there would be charges of sixpence and threepence respectively for £1 and teu shillingtickets. This would provide the State with a substantial amount of revenue. It was also proposed to tax bookmakers to the extent of 5 per cent, ou their total turnover. License lees, charges on tickets and the 5 per cent, tax should return £300,000 a year to the State. Totalisator Revenue. Mr W. Nash (Labour —Hutt) quoted figures to show how much was gained by the Government from the totalisator. If racegoers had £lO,OOO and bet tu full capacity all day, they would only have £2189 at the end of the day. Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Kiccartou) said the Bill proposed to allow bookmakers to get money without the bettors seeing the races at all. Mr T. Makitanara (Southern Maori): They are doing it now. Mr Kyle: Yes, but they should be stopped, not encouraged. Mr Kyle said he was opposed to the Bill. Air W. E. Parry (Labour —Auckland Central) said it was impossible to stop betting and it was useless to try. The member who introduced tho Bill was to bo congratulated on having proposed something for the control of bookmakers. Air Alakitanara supported the Bill and said it would protect the public from bookmakers. Mr K. S. Williams (Bay of Plenty) said he hoped the Bill would be allowed to go to a committee. It was apparent from Air Armstrong’s remarks that something would have to bo done. The business would either have to bo stopped or regulated. This view was supported by several members, while others urged that the existing gaming legislation should be more stringently enforced. The debate was interrupted by the rising nf the House until Tuesday afternoon.