GAMING REFORM.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 875, 22 July 1910, Page 4

GAMING REFORM.

? The debate which opened in the House of Representatives yesterday on the subject of gambling is really the most interesting that has taken place in Parliament for some time. The unanimity with which members' arose and denounced the bookmaker may be taken as a tribute to the influence exerted hy the antigambling movement, which received such a fillip recently from Mr. Justice Chapman. Hero and there a champion came forward in defence of the layers of the odds, but they were overwhelmed by the weight of opinion advanced. No one could fail to admire the courage .of the Minister for Railways in his outspoken dofence of betting generally and the bookmakers in particular; and we have no doubt that a great many people will be in agreement with him on the general question of the impossibility of eradicating gambling entirely by Act of Parliament. Very few people, on the other hand, will go' the length that Mr. Millar ventured in comparing gambling on horse-racing to taking out ah insurance policy, and it is surprising to find a Minister, who usually is level-headed enough, making so unfortunate a comparison. What N has surprised us during the debate has been the attitude of some of the anti-gambling, party in playing into the hands of the bookmakers. Me. Taylor, for instance, took up the stand that if the bookmaker went the totalisator must go also. Wo cannot believe that in adopting this view Mit. Taylor wished to prolong the life of tho bookmakers, yet it is exactly the method taken by the pro-bookmaker party to force the totalisator party to vote in defence, of the bookmakers. Mr. Taylor's ignorance of racecourse gambling is perhaps excusable, but it was really ludicrous to hear him arguing with that cocksureness so characteristic of his utterances in Parliament that whatever else could be said of the bookmaker, women and young people •I'u'ulcl not but with him—they preferred the totalisator. Nothing could be more absurd. * The bookmaker takes wagers from half-a-crown upwards, and anyone who patronises a race meeting at which bookmakers are present will see for himself the error of Mr. Taylor's views. It is not necessary to recapitulate the very,obvious differences between tho totalisator and the bookmaker as a medium of gambling. The fact that the totalisator is conlined to the racecourse; that it doesnot tout' for business; that it demands cash for. every transaction between it and the general public are familiar arguments, ajid good ones. For these and other reasons the totalisator is infinitely preferable to the bookmaker. .The question of whether it is desirable to have even the totalisator as a medium of wagering is another issue. We hold the view that there is too much horse-racing ,in New Zealand, and that a reduction in the number of race days is necessary. When that is we believe that the totalisator is the best' means of regulating the' gambling which is inevitable amongst a large section of the community. In theory, i\he abolition of all forms of gambling is an eminently desirable thing—i.H practice the difficulties are insurTOOunt-. able. The safest way to handle the question, therefore, is to ensuja a means of control which will coDiJne gambling on horse-racing to the'racecourse, and also reduce it to a reasonable minimum. The totalisator, counted with a stricter enforcement' i of the law, can bt, made to do this.