LOCAL SPORTSMAN WANTS A CLEARER DEFINITION OF ISSUES FOR NEXT MONTH’S REFERENDUM

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 13, Issue 57, 25 February 1949, Page 5

LOCAL SPORTSMAN WANTS A CLEARER DEFINITION OF ISSUES FOR NEXT MONTH’S REFERENDUM

Off-Course Betting

Clarification of the issues to be placed before the electors <.on March 9is sought by a Whakatane district sportsman, who wants to know just what the Government intends to do if the public does authorise off-the-course betting. In the course of discussion with a Beacon representative the other day, he also put forward a viewpoint that has not been widely publicised elsewhere, that of the section of the public which believes the best possible solution would be the licensing of selected bookmakers. Here is what he said.

The issue before the voting public on March 9 is but another instance of the individual versus State -Control. The case for the licensing of selected bookmakers in all centres throughout the Dominion, as is done in most English-speaking countries, is. probably new to the average New Zealander, who has only known the law that brands the bookmaker as a lawbreaker, and at the same time tolerates and even -encourages him to carry on his calling. The amazing anomaly is that there is such a being as an ‘honest bookmaker’ who has been created by sheer public demand ; and fills a very useful role and ' service in a race-minded country such as ours. Admitted, there are rogues in the game, and always will be as long .as the practice is driven underground. These undesirables can only "be sifted by bringing the whole fabric to the surface, weeding out the ‘unwanteds’ and publicly li•censing those who have established a reputation for straight dealing over the years. The New Zealand Racing Conference has put forward its proposal for the establishment of totaJisator depots in all centres for the reception of bets, and the later distribution of all dividends from a 'Common centre in Wellington. Is the Government prepared to stand by this arrangement? This is a vital question to which the voter is entitled to know the answer. If that is the scheme which has "been endorsed by the recent Gaming Commission it can be assumed •that it will be adopted at least in part by the Government should the poll be carried. In that event it is well to ask the following questions:— (a) Would the Government be prepared to return pro rata to each centre, the profits made on the central totalisator. (b) Is the Racing Conference spending money advocating at Government policy at the present time, ■or merely seeking the control of all betting proceeds itself? (c) What genuine alternative is the Government prepared to extend the racing public apart from the scheme formulated by the Racing Conference. (d) Would dividends under the new scheme of betting be regarded as ‘unearned income’ and therefore open for taxation? (e) Would the proposed new system give a complete coverage of all meetings in both Islands? (f) In the event of an accident or hold-up occurring in the transmission of messages, would the new system provide the investor with full protection, and would a dividend, if any, be paid? These points and many others must occur to the reasoning person before he or she casts a vote at the all-important poll on March 9 next. It is fair to assume that all questions submitted to public poll should be carefully set out in order that the alternative should be clearly defined. As in the case of the liquor control laws, when the public is invited to vote upon three simple heads, Prohibition? Continuance? State Control? This is a fair assessement of facts, providing a middle course apart from the negative and the positive. In the present instance the question of off-course betting has no such clarity. The practical assessment should be: Abolition? Continuance (by licensed individuals)? Controlled Scheme? The three headings are thereby unmistakeable and provide the average voter with the case in a nutshell. It is not generally known that during the sitting of the Gaming Commission, the Dominion Sportsmen’s Association put forward a complete and balanced scheme whereby under the licensing of bookmakers in all centres, I understand, the sum of £40,000 would be paid into the public purse by way of revenue each year. All parties are agreed that the old system of underground and surreptitious betting' must go. Many feel that the law of the land is as much at fault as the bookmaker who has been created to meet a public demand that will not be denied. It

has to be borne in mind, further, that even under the existing state of affairs no practising bookmaker can afford to be dishonest with his clientele. One slip, and he is doomed as far as his living is concerned. “The solution which will salve the conscience of the nation is undoubtedly by the middle course of licensing bookmakers in all centres, thereby giving them a recognised status in the community which will be open to investigation and audit. In short, placing bookmakers on the same basis as any other business giving a public service and meeting a need.”