BETTING PERMITS

Evening Star, Issue 20053, 19 December 1928, Page 2

BETTING PERMITS

ABUSE IN VICTORIA New Zealand will not license bookmakers. Victoria does. The Victorian Taxation Department has an official specially in charge of its betting branch. Officially and unofficially ho sees a good deal, and he imparted some of his Knowledge the other day to a Parliamentary Select Committee on racing in Victoria. His name is Charles Wilson Tyzack. He told of defaulting bookmakers who are enabled to obtain new permits through an anomaly of the Betting Act; and of “ rogues and vagabonds ” who took out bookmakers’ licenses to evade conviction under the Vagrancy Act. As a Government official, witness claimed tho privilege of not replying to any questions relating to the total isator. Mr Cohen, M.L.C., presided.

Mr Tyzack submitted a number of returns relating to taxation on betting in Victoria. “In 1921-22 the total revenue received from shell taxation,” said witness, “ was £152,861, comprising £14,670 from licenses and permits, and £138,191 from betting tickets, of which 12,706,257 were used. In 1922-23 the department obtained the recoid revenue of £163,824 .although the number of tickets decreased to 11,696,822. In that year a proportionately greater number of sixpenny tickets was issued. In 1926-27 the revenue was £117,926, but the number of tickets increased to 15,226,402 (a record). In 1927-28 the revenue was £115,898, which included the fecord amount of £14,755 from licenses and permits.” Witness submitted a return showing that from October, 1916, to the end of June last eighty-two bookmakers had died; 156 had defaulted; and 1,231 had retired. Tho average number of bookmakers who paid the tax, ho said, varied very little from 1,000 each year. The Chairman: “ Those who retired—do you know whether they retired with a competence or through incompetence P ”

Witness: “ Through iucompetence--or, rather, through want of finance.” “ Are there defaulters who still operate as bookmakers?”—“ Yes; take the recent case of a bookmaker who defaulted owing £2,000, and was declared a defaulter at Tattorsall’s Club. His licenses were revoked by the V.A.T.C., the Trotting Association, and the Epsom and Mentone Clubs. But there is nothing to prevent him applying for a new permit to any club outside the metropolitan area not affiliated with the V ,R.C. or V.A.T.C. If he tenders the stamp duty I am bound to accept it, even if I know that bo is a defaulter.” “ The only way to meet that would be by an amendment of the Act? “ Yes; the Controller of Stamps should be given some discretionary powers. I had a complaint the other day from a country ntcogoor about a bookmaker whom I have always considered undesirable, who got his permit through the Lockhart Club, and operated at Beulah. The backor complains that he bet an' oven ‘ fiver,’ and when ho took the winning ticket to this bookmaker ho was told that it was not bis ticket. I have the ticket, which bears the name of a Melbourne bookmaker, and which seems to have been cleaned and rcW M| C Davis, M.L.C.: “ Should not an application for a license he accompanied by credentials? ” Witness: “ I think so. We have recommended an amendment of the Act ever since it was passed, but there does not seem any anxiety to make amendments. Some so-called bookmakers are only * rogues and vagabonds.* They take out permits simply to ‘ dodge, the Vagrancy Act. Two such individuals were charged a few years ago at Ballarat, and they escaped conviction by producing their permits, although they were, well-known travellers on interstate trains and operators of the three-card trick. As a responsible Government officer, I had no power to refuse their applications.”