V.R.C. Totalisator Bill.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume III, Issue 119, 3 November 1892, Page 9

V.R.C. Totalisator Bill.

After a lengthy period of suspense, the Victorian Legislative Council have rejected the Totalisator Bill by a majority of 29 to 6. What a decided victory for the “ pencillers I” I suppose they have been exceedingly busy pulling every available wire, planning every conceivable device, and using all the influence they could possibly bring to bear upon

the members of the said Council in order to gain the day. Assuredly “ their labours have not been in vain.” As I remarked recently, each one of these Councillors seemed afraid to undertake the responsibility of “ fathering ” the “ little Bill,” but why would seem a mystery. It reminded me of the man who had to fight, but didn't want to, so turning to his second he asked if he was a good second, and receiving a reply to the effect that he was so, coolly said, “Well, you had better go first." The rejection of this measure opens up many avenues through which our thoughts are apt to run. First of all —What were the motives which actuated those 29 members who voted against it ? No doubt there are several classes or sections into which this party may be divided, viz. : — 1. —Those who are religiously inclined and object to the machine as being a greater incentive to gambling and its accompanying vices than the ordinary course of betting with “ the ring.” 2. Those who are members of the Victoria Racing Club or its Executive Committee, and opine that the introduction of the totalisator would be likely to affect the Club’s revenue very seriously. 3 —Those who are politically influenced by the members of Class 2 and of the friends of the bookmakers, &c., and tremble, may be, for the safety of their various seats ; and 4. —Those who have no decided opinion upon the matter whatever, and always try to vote with the majority or winning side. * * # * % Secondly, a word with regard to the motives by which each section has been actuated in the matter : — No. 1 Section are influenced solely from moral and religious motives. All credit to them for voting in accordance with the dictates of their consciences. But, I ask, has any diminution of the evils of gambling been accomplished hitherto by any act of Parliament. The answer is decidedly, No. Then why attempt, or rather continue to attempt, reformation in this particular way ? “ What cannot be cured must be endured,” and if the public are determined to gamble (I mean speculate), then, by all means, let them do so but let them have every protection and safeguard the law can grant them. Past history points conclusivelv to the fact that no amount or quality of legislation can quench the spirit of speculative enterprise (call it gambling if you will) of a large majority of the human race, and especially the Anglo-Saxon branch of it. Then what a pity it is that Section 1 of our Legislative bodies persist in running counter to the adage I have quoted, viz., “ What can’t be cured, etc.” To the onlookers (who always see most of the game), it is plainly apparent that this said Section 1 in their attempts at reform are ever and anon the dupes* of some interested parties, and are simply playing “ second fiddle ” to them and yet attaining no nearer to that perfection which their misguided efforts lead them to hope for. My advice to such persons is, “Give it up”; and, as there seems little chance of improving the immoral practices (judged from their standpoint) of the sporting community, they would do far more good by throwing in their lot with those who are willing to grant certain concessions in connection with sport which would thereby be likely to be purer under strict surveillance. The results of such action on the part of those of similar views in our own Parliament are plainly shown by the fact that the Government accept a totalisator tax of per cent., and yet appear to look with “ holy horror” upon the legalising of sweeps. I fail to see why the Legislature of New Zealand should not legalise and receive revenue from sweeps as well as through the medium of the totalisator. A large majority of the general public would be equally satisfied, and at the same time be safeguarded from frauds. Just think of the amounts which are actually sent out of the colony annually for investment in sweeps, and of the amount of revenue derivable were such conduct permitted within the precincts of our over-protected colony. So far, it is patent, no amount of so-called “ goodygoodyism ” has minimised the gambling craze. Then, let’s have a change, and let the moral and religious section of our legislative bodies throw in their lot with that section who are inclined to see justice done to all, and are even anxious to uphold “ Honor among thieves,” if I may so express the sentiment. With regard to Section No. 2 (who are ever ready to avail themselves of the assistance of Section 1 only to serve their own ends but discard them otherwise), I reckon their opinions are illogical and

are greatly wanting in forethought and wisdom. Let us suppose that the machine were introduced, and thereby several acceptors who accepted with interested parties’ money were lost to them, what of it ? Many horses which accept are said to be paid up for a race, and start therefor, with not a million to one chance, but are started for the purpose of interfering with and ruining the chances of those in the race who are capable, and perforce carry a great weight of the public’s money. Truly a nice state of affairs I Section 3 are a very weak-kneed lot, but like No. 2 are keenly interested and can therefore only view the matter from a biassed point of view. They are better though than Section 4, who are indeed a “ poor crowd,” seeing they have no minds of their own and always go with the majority without being able to give reasons for or against the subject upon which they are voting.

Thirdly, a few arguments in favour of the introduction of the totalisator into Victoria. Of course it will be argued that they over there should best be able to judge, and anything I might say can only be taken as an opinion expressed from an opposite point of view. With regard to the statement that I have frequently heard re horses being paid up for which only interfere with others who have a chance, this would arise from various causes. A certain section of the “ring” might find it advantageous to have some such animals left in and would pay accordingly. Then others who draw these horses in a sweep make a clean gain by having them as starters instead of non-starters, For instance, in Tattersail’s /i 00,000 sweep on the Melbourne Cup, a starter is worth something like /'So more than if scratched, and therefore the final payment of 45SOVS is a clear gain of/zstothedrawer. Ifwesuppose this to be a revenue of say /250 to the Club, how much more revenue would they derive from the investments on the tote and do without the above amounts ? The sweep horses would pay up all the same, but the other deadheads would be of a necessity left out, and thereby the public have a better chance of backing the best horse. I know full well that one great argument against the machine is that the public don’t keep and run the horses; that of course the horse-owners are the parties to study ; and that it is the early long odds that enable them to keep it up. But on the other hand I would ask “ where does the money which the ‘bookies’ lay the odds with come from ?” Why, from the general public, of course. Andiftheg.p.giveoverbackinghorsesthen the “ ring ” would soon cease to lay the odds, and where would our horseowners derive their revenue from then ? So far as the Victoria Racing Club is concerned I opine they have nothing to lose and a deal to gain by introducing the machine. For instance, let any reader sit down and count up the income that would accrue from the tote during the four days of the Spring Meeting alone, and I wonder if any of us could form an approximate idea of the actual amount. I question it very much. Would twenty thousand pounds be anything like the amount, allowing say 8 per cent, of the investments to go to the Club? If the general publicarethechief supporters of the racing andifthe machine is their preferred method of wagering, then it behoves the various clubs to so arrange matters that “ the greatest good to the greatest number" shall be the existing state of affairs, and should introduce the tote at their meetings. Many other minor arguments might be brought forward for and against, but as / s. d. is a great governing factor, it is clear the Victorian Clubs would have been great gainers by the passing of “ that Bill.” As already stated, they ought to know better than I, and what I have “ remarked ” here must only be looked upon as an expression of opinion, and is not said with an arrogant or dictatorial spirit. Someone else might take up the other side of the question, whereby the subject could then be fairly understood and discussed on its merits. Certain it is that whatever any of us may say it does not alter the fact that for the present the VictorianTotalisator Bill is “dead to the world.”