NEW ZEALAND SPORT.

Hokitika Guardian, 8 September 1923, Page 1

NEW ZEALAND SPORT.

AND THE RUSH SESSION. WHY GAMING BILL WAS HELD OVER, AN INTERESTING INTERVIEW. WELLNGTON, Sept. 5. Mr R. W. Sliallerass (general secretary to the New Zealand Sports Protection League) gave ail interesting interview on the subject of Parliament and sport, dealing more particularly with the fortunes of the Gaming Bill and other matters in -which sportsmen are interested in the rush session recently concluded. Naturally, those associated with the sport of racing and trotting were somewhat disappointed that the Gaming Bill did not pass during the session just ended, said Mr Sliallerass, as there was clearly a majority of at least fotry in the House of Representatives in favour of tho Bill. There

were several reasons why tho measure though strongly supported, did not roach the Statute Book. The rush session was tho primary cause, and tlie hill being introudcod in the dying hours, provided a reason for a considerable degree of opposition. There also appeared to lie. an organised movement against the easy passage of the measure, in sympathy with the defeat of the jockeys in their effort some years ago to form a union. The same body of stonewallers may have had some other object in view, which was probably disclosed in the amendment supporting an inquiry into the question of licensing bookmakers. The bill was not formidable in itself, the increase in toalisator licenses being practically the only contentious clause between the supporters of racing and those directly opposed or not very sympathetic thereto. The increase suggested was very small indeed, and no doubt if time had permitted, tho House would have been agreeable to further extend the number provided in the bill. The Racing Commission recommended an increase of 28 days, lmt that was after transferring 12 days, and cancelling 41 days. The commission;therefore recommended "7 days, which are not at present enjoyed by the dubs to whom they wsc« recommended. The Gaming Bill provided for an additional 12 days’ racing, and 19 da vs’ trotting. A POPULAR MISCONCEPTION. ‘-There is a popular misconception as to the effect of granting extra days,” said Mr Sliallerass. “One member foolishly fell into the popular error by declaring that it would mean another month’s racing. Others have been known io say that we have a race meeting for almost every day in the year ; the total number of licenses be-

ing somewhat less than the total number of days in the year. These statements are no doubt made to create an erroneous impression in the iniblic mind. As a matter of fact, the races are so spread from the Bay of Islands to Riverton that no one community can have a surfeit. There arc only eight racing clubs and three trotting chibs which have more than four days’

racing, those with four days number 20, and there arc-87 clubs with less than four days, including 04 with only one day. ■,Wellington itself has only tea days in all, including one day’s trotting. This is, indeed, a very small share of the total time devoted to recreation by our citizens—about 86 1 ours for tlie whole year, for the few v. i*> attend every meeting. Gl .be total days, about 150 arc used during the Ciirinstnins and Easier holidays and on Saturdays, and most of the others are held on local holidays. The total number of racing days twenty years agef was 236. The population of New Zealand was then about 875,000; and now, with a population of over a million and a quarter, there are 228, or eight days loss. One-day racing clubs arc entitled to better treatment. There are 50 of them. The total number of days for trotting is 59, of which only 19 are enjoyed in tho North Island. Wellington lias only one day, Hawke’s Bay lias no trotting license at all; while Manawatu, Wanganui, and Taranaki are poorly provided for. In Auckland, the sport has prospered wonderfully; hut 'the city requires feeders from the country. THE SEVEN STONE MINIMUM. “In addition to the matter of totalisntor permits, the discussion on tho question of flic 7-stone minimum occupied several hours,” continued Mr Sliallerass. “Many crocodile tears were shed in consequence of the supposed cruelty to jockeys voluntarily endeavouring to keep themselves in the (Ist 71h class. It is, of course, a

fallacy to suppose that the introduction of the 7st minimum would effect a cure. There would be a far greater number of boys endeavouring to keep themselves within the 7st class than there are at present seeking to ride at Ost 711).

“The danger of big fields was also made fbe most of by the stonewallers. There was, however, provision in the bill to allow for a. division of races, which those who desired to talk persistentlv refused to understand. Par-

liament must, therefore, because of not passing the measure, taks its share of the responsibility of racing large fields on narrow tracks. It M hoped that the bill will be reintroduced early" next- session, and that sufficient time will be allowed for its passage. This would give an oppor-

tunity for the discussion of a number of restrictions, imposed bv the present legislation, which liavc tho effect of fostering a considerable degree of illicit betting. SPORT AND TAXATION.

“All sports bodies must be thoroughly disappointed at the small measure of relief granted in connection with the amusement tax, particularly as last veal- the Prime Minister held out such strong hopes of being able to repeal tbe tax dring the session of this year. Public expenditure, however, appears to he increasing; and for the present it is not possible to make an exemption . beyond the Is gate fee. But Mr Massey has stated that the imposition of the amusement tax was purely a war measure, and that it will lie repealed altogether as soon, as possible. “The amendment to the Land and Income Tax Act, which exempts income derived from land from the payment of income tax, will relieve racing clubs from tho imposition of income tax. This, however, is only the removal of an anomaly which inadvertently crept into our legislation, but: it will now allow those clubs, which are able to do so to accumulate their surpluses for future improvements without being unduly taxed lor so doing. “MOST UNFAIR.” “The tax on. stakes has been reduced by the Stamp Act. from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. Here, again, there was a departure from the general principles of taxation. The tax on stakes (originally 1 per cent) was levied to save owners tho necessity of making returns to tho taxing department of their racing transactions for income tax purposes. The tax of 1 per cent provided the State with a revenue o v from £SOOO to £7OOO. per annum, which was no doubt more than it would be able to collect .if owners were assessed on their net incomesDuring the slump of two years ago when it was necessary to secure revenue from every available source, the Government, without any regard for principles, seized on tbe stakes and increased the tax from 1 per cent to 10 per cent. It has now been reduced to 5 per cent, but it should be brought down to tlic original rate fixed for a specific purpose. In effect, every form of racing taation is a tax on stakes; and it is most unfair to exhaust all the other systems, which in themselves deplete tho amount given in stakes, and then make a further imposition on the stakes themselves.

“There was also another proposal for a reduction in the totalisator tax, designed to give some relief to small country clubs,” concluded Mr Shallcrass ; “but the clause was inadvertently omitted from tho Stamp Bill, and was subsequently lost sight of in the rush at tho end of the session.”