THE GAMING BILL

Hokitika Guardian, 8 October 1930, Page 7

THE GAMING BILL

(Sporting," and Dramatic News.) " •; (Concluded.) The “Bookies” Friends. There are so many: reasons for regretting that the Gaming; Amendment Bill has .been shelved which has so. often been disf cussed in these columns , that : further .reiteration is hardly necessary; but it might be as well to answer some of the . reasons: given by certain members A of Parliament for their either openly opposingijthe Bill or assisting to kill itf'-by talking against time, garbling threadbare arguments so that a vote cj>uld not. be taken on its merits, s' Reasons for Opposition. The Labour Member ■ for Christchurch East' (Mr H. T. Armstrong) contended the Bill was against'the interests of true sport. He, of course, is entitled to his opinion, on the ethical gide. of the question; bjut the . arguments he put forward are certainly not convincing. This politician said,-inter alia;, (a) there are already -facilities ■ enough to invest money . ; on vthe totalisator; (b) that legisla.fion could not decrease transactions 'bookmakers (c) ‘it -would beagainst' the. interests of the country to turn every telegraph office into an agency : fprjithe ijotalisator.and (d); as it wa.si'imposaible book-.i, makers ' it'> would -be better to lioehse them. vrv-" The Übiquitous Outlaw.—Taking the last contention first, it need only be Mid that, according to law, the bookmaker is‘; an outlaw in this country, and ■is a sufficiently widespread demand to have ‘‘the game” again legalised, and I am quite sure tlgiere is • no. such demand, 'to use this ag. an argument, .against permitting bpita tobetelegraphed. to the racing c\ubs is bmwely,: trying to lay a .false ■*£&&,■ As]to. the ;contention that bookmaking aanhot; be . suppressed, I may say; that no man with any knowledge ofithii of illicit betting on racehorsci ;^||||dX:f£iir^ ( ;cbnterid, that the police the. ppwer under the preV rtht 'Actf.of suppress- / '• iri& M^iiyprosecutions: are /li laid; alleged'wokjnakers and in the- grpat (jrn&jbigty of: cases the defen dants' ;aiidVproihptly pay. are -many hundreds' of so-called “bbokjoa’.’ J opeVabing in * absolute defiance of the' law;]?(vwhich the policy know all abbut. Vpt; cahriot bring before a magistrate; because of the loopholes in the lawf.t Totali.gwPtor Agencies:' As to the con. .authorising the telepraphilig of ;hebA;to the racecourse would be / tantambuptto turning every telegraph

office iii^ap'agency, for the totalisator, . * I..can bnlyf repeat: what I have several J times prciHously. .suggested, namely, 'N that .thetb'A'tfiould be no need for the to . use the telegraph fflEce. They 'could register their bets -with local racing and trotting dub sec. retaxie*:;’Qp;’:;other authorised agents, »nd tbe >hptß could thus ; be sent en bloc ■ to’ ther courses before each race, covered fsy;a single telegram.

, A Futile Assertion.—For Mr Armstrong or any other man to state seriously that legislation could not decrease transactions with bookmakers, displays a lack of ordinary intelligence, which even a politician is usually credited wifcli possessing in a restricted way. If a spectator in Auckland, for example, wished to have a bet on a horse running at Christchurch and he could telegraph his bet, that man, if a. law abiding citizen or a good sport, would telegraph his bet if the facilities were available, in preference to breaking the law and patronising a local “bookie.” By denying the public this facility thousand of people now go and place, their bets with a “layer of tote odds” otherwise a black leg. These; remarks also answer the contention. that there are already facilities enough to invest money on the totalisator. Creating a thirst for Betting.—The member for Wellington Suburbs (Air R. A.' Wright) protested that to permit the telegraphing of bets ancl the publication of dividends would create a thirst for betting, among the young people. In other words, it would place; unnecessary temptations in their way to gamble. To my way of thinking, Air Wright’s contention is anything but right; indeed, the shoe would be on the other foot. One of the soundest arguments in favour of the totalisator, and at the sia.tfie time the strongest argument against the bookmaker, is that the former never sol- • leitS '.a* bet,' - ; never ■-accepts credit* l>et;ting r and ,a guarantee against “welching.” ; Mr AVright must., know the “bookie” is a tempter and often accepts credit bets to bring a person in his web, and not infrequently dodges' his liabilities, c- .Licensing Bookmakers. A. Af.nori ■■ALP, (Mr T, Makitanara) openly declared himself in favour of licensing bookmakers because the country wanted revenue from'them. That, of course, was apart altogether from the proposamendments to the Gaming Act, Hl4si raises the point that the Govern•iriien't is losing a very substantial relyehtle through the present law being so-.'easily defied, because the book■#ifi3ier, as such, pays no taxation. /Mis, then, would seem to be a cogent 'lfgument to amend the law and secure taxation from at least the bulk of the money now spent ,on racing speculations. Every pound that passed .through the -totalisator would be pay- ; ihg;!ts quota to keep the sport on a high plane, and at the same time relievo taxation in other directions. “Innocence Abroad;”—The member for AVaimarino (Air F. Langstone) is apparently a very innocent soul, and one must console with him in his childlike simplicity when lie confesses to the belief that'to pass the proposed amendments would encourage bookmakers. There can be no 'question that if f liepublic were given .'facilities to 1 make their bets’ when away from 'the courses,' by telegraphing their money for investment. on the machine, nine punters .out of ten would take this means of speculating rather than defy the law, and place their bets with “bookies,” whom most people rightly regard as parasites, and only patronise them, because they provide the only medium of having a bet away from, the course.

Encouraging Afodest Speculation.— I have now dealt with practically all the arguments raised in opposition to the Gaming Amendment Bill in the House, and it is hardly necessary to refer to the many arguments that could be advanced in its favour. One point, however, is worthy of note to relute the idea that to permit the telegraphing of bets to the racecourses would encourage gambling. The member for AVaitomo (Mr AV. J. Broadfoot) pertinently remarked that- if people were permitted to send their bets for investment through the totalisator they were likely to be satisfied with the investment, of ten shillings or a pound, whereas if they attended a meeting they might be induced to bet on every race.

' Publication of Dividends. —The question of permitting the publication of dividends me( with practically no opposition but, of course, unless the Bill as a whole can he passed this embargo on newspapers must continue to exist. There is really no legitimate reason for blocking this reform, and the public are entitled to know openly what the dividends were, without, as Mr.Broadfoot, remarked, “having to find out by tip-toeing round the corner to a ‘bookje.’ ” However, without Parliament passes a Bill amending the present law the public must continue to be treated as children whose morals might be corrupted if the "newspapers' printed this intelligence, which is published on the racecourses and is readily available through' dozens of surreptitious sources within a few minutes of a. race being run in any part of the ewiitry. Thus are we governed. AVe have pxirile and ineffective laws and timid lawmakers who shirk their responsibilities because of the fear of alienating the sympathy of a small but bigoted and intolerant section of their constituents,