SECOND READING

Grey River Argus, 1 October 1948, Page 7

SECOND READING

URENCY FOR GAMING POLL BILL IN PARLIAMENT Wide Variety of Views Expressed P.A, WELLINGTON, Sept. 30. In the House of Representatives, this afternoon, on the motion of the acting-Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. W. Nash, urgency was taken for the second reading debate on the Gaming Poll -Bill. . , v x x Mr. R. G. Gerard (Nat., Ashburton), resuming the debate said that before a referendum was taken on the Question of extending off-course betting, the Minister should have brought down a full scheme in regard to betting, so that the people would know where they were, rather than vote in the blind and wait for the Minister to announce a scheme. WOULD BEAT BOOKIES - - - —I Mr. F. Langstone (Govt., Roskill), said that there was no other country where there were such a number oi races, and such high stakes as in NewZealand. Ninety per cent, ot the totalisator revenue, over the average of three years, had to be spent on stakes. Mr. Langstone said that there were no real difficulties in the way of establishing off-course betting facilities, which, once they were popularised would do more than anything else to take people away from the bookmakers and illegal betting. AGAINST OFF-COURSE BETTING I Mr. T. C. Webb (Nat., Rodney) said he would vote against off-course betting facilities. If a referendum were not taken at the general election next year, there would be a very small poll. If there were a poll of only 100,000, of whom 55,000 were in favour of offcourse betting and 45,000 against, would that be taken as an indication of the will of the people ? The Hon. W. E. Parry: Of course, it will. It is an opportunity to vote. Mr. Webb went on to say that the potent argument in favour ot offcourse betting was that it was opposed by the bookmakers. There was an irresistible demand for off-course betting, and there was a lot to be said for tackling the bookmaker on his own ground, and endeavouring to defeat him by providing the public with legal means of off-course betting’. Legalising off-course betting would result in more betting, illegal and legal, he said. For that reason, it was undesirable to move. Either the bookmaker must be licensed —and with that he did not agree—or the law must be enforced. The enforcement of the law would decrease what was, at the moment, a very grave social evil, which was growing worse. Mr. Webb said that the only reason for the broadcasting of scratchings at the races was to let the people know if their bets were on or off. He regretted that a State Department should be involved in this way. ALTERNATIVE NEEDED

‘ Mt. M. Moohan (Govt., Petone) said the great majority or punters did not want anything done to trie bookmakers unless they were given some other betting facilities. If there was to be a system of off-course betting, the private interest must be eliminated. The system would have to be conducted by the racing and trotting authorities, to ensure that all money went through the totaiisators, and the whole betting business, but on a better b£ Mr. Moohan considered that it would be a good idea if some of the profits of racing clubs were devoted to other forms of sport, such as dog racing. He argued that it was wrong for the Commission to say, in its report, that a State Department knew that telephones were being used for unlawful purposes. That should be determined by a Magistrate, after the police had made their inquiries. It was at that point that the Post and Telegraph Department took out the telephones. There was a wide diversity oi opinion on the question of off-course betting, but before the Government started to deal with the matter, the people should be asked for an expression of opinion.

Discussing the Bill, Mi’. R. M. Macfarlane (Govt., Christchurch Central), , said the group known as the associat- j ed churches regarded betting as a ( moral evil. The view of the Anglican < Church was somewhat different and j would by many people be defined as I more liberal. The view of the Cath- . olic Church appeared to be in agreement with that of the Anglican • Church in several major respects, ana it did not regard gambling in itseli as morally wrong or sinful, but considered that by excesses it might beC °Mr S J. R- Marshall (Nat., Mount Victoria) said that in every town and village there were bookmakers, and in every shop and factory of any size thero were agents who collected bets from workers and passed them on to the bookmakers. On an average £2O a head was spent on gambling each year Excessive gambling led to extravagance, debt, and impoyerisnment. It was a cause of fraud and a corrupt influence on sport. Paiiiament had a duty to develop a public conscience against excessive gambling, ana The provision of increased gambling facilities was not legislation they Wilson (Govt., Rangitikei), said that if the law were being disregarded then it was being brought into disrepute. He believed the > majority of the people wanted off-course betting, and it should be legalised. Mr. 8. W. Smith (Nat., Hobson) said the Government, having appointed a Gaming Commission, should have been prepared to legislate in the light of its recommendations instead of parsing the buck back to the public. He asked what would happen if less than half of the electors voted and a minority of the people determined the outcome of the referendum. Maoris would be allowed to vote apparently with little check. The Minister had ad-

mitted that the Maori roll would not be ready by the time a referendum was taken. That being so, Europeans might as well go to the poll “early and often,” as it had been alleged some Maori voters did. He thought that if off-course betting was legalised its actual volume might decrease. He would not oppose the Bill, but it was a weak way of dealing with the question He would prefer to see lotteries wined right off the slate where there was such a small return of £65,000 for the expenditure of £273,000. A Government member: The profits go back to the people. Mr Smith said that if the Minister could not run a lottery with more success, there must be something wrong with it. AGAINST REFERENDUM .

In the House of Representatives tonight, the second reading debate on the Gaming Poll Bill was continued. , „ Mr A. S. Sutherland (Nat Hauraki) said that racing in New Zealand was being carried on with a minimum of corruption. He said the Racing and Trotting Conference and Stewardand all "clubs should be congratulated on their efforts in this direction. He doubted whether the amount that was said to pass through the bookmakers hands was as large as the commission’s report had estimated. He said he could see no moral difference between the totalisator and

the legalised bookmaker. The commission's recommendation to set up a Racing Advisory Board savoured too much of State control. It was obnoxious to him. Mr Sutherland said that Parliament should either have supported of discarded the commission’s recommendations, and the betting question should not be decided by a referendum at all. The farest way to deal with all of the hunt clubs was to alolw every one of them a totalisator permit, rather than that those with permits should be contributing financial assistance to those without permits. The drift of population was to the North Island. The position of the trotting clubs, therefore, had changed. He said that more tote licenses should be given to the North Island clubs. He regretted that the commission saw fit not to legalise the “equalisaor” at the picnic type of race meetings,- because those in rural areas were just as entitled to their race meetings as anyone else. He hoped that full consideration would be given to the requirements of people in rural areas when later legislation was brought down. Hon W. E. Parry: There will be a Bill. CLEAN-UP SUGGESTED Mr J. N. Mathison (Govt. Avon) said he would not adopt a Wowserish attitude, and he would certainly vote for the proposal of off-course legalised betting when it was submitted to a referendum. The present Bill, providing for a referendum, was fully justified, and there would be further onnortunities for discussing the actual merits of off-course betting. TOTE PREFERRED Mr Mathison said that racing wanted cleaning up, in many ways. Mr Sutherland: “How do you know?” Mr J. J. Maher (Nat Otaki) confessed that he had, in the past, backed racehorses both on the totalisation and with ‘the bookmakers,, but, since he became a racing club steward, he had not had any more bets with bookmakers. He did not think it was right for a club steward. Mr R>. M. MacFarlane (Government Christchurch Central): “How do you become a steward?” Mr Maher said that he would not like to see young people encouraged to embark on a life of gambling. The totalisator was the best, place tor conducting betting, and if more licenses were granted to clubs, especially the smaller ones, that would be the best way to deal with the problem. He would not like to see any more facilities given for betting away from the racecourses. He d‘sliked the Bill, and would probably vote against it. Mr Maher said that he wanted to see racing kept as clean as possible, and the clubs in this country did their utmost to keep it clean. PUBLIC ABLE TO JUDGE I

Hon. H. G. R. Mason said that it was a pity if sporting activities could not be managed by sporting institutions. He thought that the procedure adopted in the present Bill was a convenient one. It was a social question, very properly submitted to the peoifie. He did not want to see the facilities for betting increased, but the people could say if they thought, that the provision of off-course totalisator agencies would increase or mitigate the evils of gambling. CRITIC OF GAMBLING

Mr. D. M. Rae (Nat., Parnell), said that the Bill was a pooh result for all the work of the Royal Commission. He considered that the broadcasting service was a propaganda agent foi bookmakers. While it was desirable that there should be entertainment in the form of racing broadcasts, the Government had a good deal to be ashamed of when the broadcasting service constituted nothing but a propaganda agent in that sphere of the service’s activities, He had heard that bookmakers’ touts had been found in our secondary schools. He said that Parliament'should legislate to reduce the facilities for gambling and services of the State should not be made available for the purpose of gambling, as they had been in the past. .In spite of the supposed political dangers of this question, Members of Parliament should give a lead on it. Even if gambling yielded easy taxation, that revenue might be obtained at too high a cost if it was gained at the expense of the moral strength of people. Facilities of the broadcasting service and of the Post Office should definitely oe withdrawn from promoters of gambling. BETTING PEOPLE NOT IRRESPONSIBLE 1 Mr. A. E. Armstrong (Govt., Napier) said that bookmakers could not be jlamed if people bet more than they muld afford. However, he believed :hat many of those concerned with sookmaking had a great sense of honour, just as did most businessmen. They' had a way of getting to know their clients, and they would not allow them to bet beyond their means. Mr. Armstrong said that he had been told that, in one day recently, in nis district, £25,000 was handled in commission betting, which was far more than the totalisator figure for the same day. In four day r s’ commissions totalled £95,000. i\/r„ r w /Mot Tmnlrlvn 1 •

“How did you get the figures ? 1 Mr. Armstrong: “The honourable i gentleman is asking for secrets now!” ' “Mr. Armstrong said that it was I useless shutting one’s eyes to the facts of the situation. He hoped that, if the referendum was carried, as he believed it would be, the Placing Conference would still leave betting to the men who understood the business, and would recommend to the Minister the licensing of some two hundred booklnakers. If this were done it would provide the State with a revenue of eight or ten millions. Mr. R. G. Gerard (Nat., Ashburton): “Oh, is that the proposal ? No wander the Minister kept quiet!” gambling evil— IF UNLICENSED ? l— Mr. T. P. Shand (Nat., Jdarlborough), said that the Bill represented a compromise among Government members, who were not prepared to tackle courageously the acknowledged evil of unlicensed gambling. The Bill was a disappointing prevarication. He urged the Minister to say what course the Government would follow if the referendum on off-course betting was carried He also asked for the Minister to give an assurance that smaller clubs would not be swallowed up by the larger clubs. doubles tote or not? During a discussion in the committee Stage of the Bill, Mr S. G. Holland (Nat Fendalton) said that he had been given to understand that the Racing Conference and the Trotting Conference would not support any scheme which did not include a Plan for a douoles totalisator. Hon W. E. Parry sa’d that a decision ‘would be made after the referendum was taken. ~ Mr Doidge: “It is a blind vote Mr Holland said the Bill was designed tn legalise off-course bett' n - but made no provision for a doubles totalisator, which was a major part ° f Mi^ t T ng C. Webb (Nat Rodney) "The Minister is sitting on the fence with both ears to the ground. Mr''Holland The Minister should give an assurance that there is provision for a doubles ( Mr W. A. Sheat (Nat Palea). A poll should not be held, unless the Minister will give an assurance tha the Racing Conference and Trott n \Conference will make nubile the de tails of the scheme they are pr«narpd to Mr G H. Macklev (Nat Wairarapa) asked what was contemplate! by the

Government if the voting went against the proposal. Mr M. H. Oram (Nat Manawatu) moved an amendment to provide that a poll be not held until the Racing Conference and Trotting Conference had published full details of a scheme for off-course betting on which the poll was to be taken. >

The amendment was defeated by 34 votes to 31 votes.

Hon F. Hackett: “We won by three lengths!”

LOSS OF AN HOUR FEAR !

Mr. J. R. Marshall (Nat., Mt. Victoria), said that the most pressing need to-day was for increased production. This Bill invited workers to cease work for one hour on the day the poll was taken. He moved as an amendment, that the poll should be taken on a Saturday. Mr. G. R. Corbett (Nat., Egmont) said that the education of children, who also lost much schooling through the polioymelitis outbreak, would be interfered with if the poll were taken on a week-day, because schools would be used as polling booths. Mr. Holland said that the whole of industry would be held up for half a day if a poll were held on a weekday. Rt. Hon. W. Nash said that there was nothing written into the Bill to the effect that the poll must be taken in February. If the Minister of Internal Affairs found that the last week in January or the first week in April were more convenient, he could change his plans accordingly. Mr. Nash said that in 99 cases out of 100, the arrangement for time off to vote ,-zould be by mutual agreement between workers and employers. An hour, not half a day, would suffice. Mr. Algie invited the Minister of Education to say if he thought it nroper that children should be sent home from school one day which the schools were used to decide the poll on the gambling issue. Mr. Marshall’s amendment had not been nut at midnight. The House was left sitting at 12.30 p.m.

POLL A WISE EXPEDIENT Mr C. H. Chapman (Govt., Wellington Central), said some steps should be taken to guard the public against the menace of bookmakers. The legalising of off-coure betting would minimise illegal betting with bookmakers and it was a wise thing to do to place the matter before the) electors. | AGAINST AMALGAMATION Mr K. J. Holyoake (Nat., Pahiatua) opposed the recommendation of the Gaming Commission that the Pahiatua Racing Club should be amalgamated with the Woodville Club. MINISTER IN REPLY Hon. W. E. Parry, replying to the debate, said that he had promised all of those who had made representations to him on behalf of the smaller clubs that he would _ give every consideration to their interests. He had always held the country meeting and picnic meetings in high importance. This Bill, he said, proposed to deal with a problem which had given the country considerable concern for the last twenty-eight years, and the Government, after most careful consideration of the Royal Commission’s report, had decided on the course of procedure which was embodied in the Bill. He believed that it would be bring to pass legislation of this kind without a referendum. POLL IN FEBRUARY “The issue will go before the country, and the vote will be taken in the ordinary way, sometime in February,” said the Minister. Some pretty hard words had been said about racing and gambling, but he was satisfied that not all of the people who went to the race-courses were gamblers. Nevertheless, there was a large section of the communty opposed to gambling in any shape and form. During the last year, sixty per cent, of the people bought ten shilling tickets on the race-courses; thirty per cent, bought one pound tickets, and ten per cent, bought tickets of five pounds or over. Could the sixty per cent, be called gamblers? Mr Parry went on to say that it was a gross exaggeration to say that gambling cost the country forty and sixty millions last year. Altogether, twenty-three millions went round and round the totalisators for the year and all that the people spent, or did not take home, was four millions. Mr F. W. Doidge (Nat., Tauranga): “Where will the money go that is invested through betting shops?” , _ . Mr Parry replied that the Racing Conference would control that _ revenue, and would make allocations to local clubs. The Minister asked at what point would it be considered that gambling became excessive or immoral. Mr R. M. Algie (Nat., Remuera), suggested that the point might be when a person’s bets amounted' to more than he could afford. Mr Parry: “What might be excessive to the Honourable Gentleman might not be excessive for me. The Minister went on to say that betting figures rose or fell according to the financial position of the people. He believed that our people were no worse than those in other parts of the world. The people enjoyed their days’ recreation under clean conditions. Mr Parry said that the Referendum would definitely be taken next February.

BILL PASSES SECOND READING The Bill was read the second time.