BETTING LAW

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 43, 13 October 1931, Page 2

BETTING LAW

According to the report of our Parliamentary correspondent. published in Saturday's issue, Mr. W. J. Jordan, M.P., when speaking on Mr. Armstrong's Bill for the licensing of bookmakers, stated that the bookmaker was carrying on a vice and that they should tax vice. It would be interesting if Mr Jordan would compile a list of vices according to their merits and indicate the basis and scale on which they should be taxed. This surely would provide a very wide revenue field for the Government. Pretty well everything is taxed up to the hilt now and fresh avenues would no doubt be welcomed. For instance some people claim that too much work is a vice, but politicians, according to their past records, need have little fear that they will be mulcted on this score. On the other hand too much talk is demonstrably a vice and politicians are indulging in it freely every day. A tax on this' would provide the rare and clelightful spectacle of money coming out of Parliament House instead of going into it. Another member, Mr. P. Langstone, said that he opposed the Bill on the grounds that it would facilitate a further increase in the betting vice, which the Plouse should not help to cultivate. If the House pursues its present course we will find in time bookmakers who will be willing to ru/a a sweep on the question how long the members are going to keep their jobs without giving the electors a chance to pass judgment. Present indications and the vacillation on the question of the leaders can well be summed up in the words of the old song: "It may be for years and it may be for ever." Varying cognomens have been applied to Governments in the past. We cannot, however, conceive that either Mr. Coates or Mr. Forbes would feel particularly proud if the present Government went down in history as the "Kathleen Mavourneen Ministry." The subject of the Bill which was under discussion draws attention to yet another of the errors of omission and commission for which the Parliamentarians have been responsible. Bookmaking is illegal by Act of Parliament, yet members themselves admit that gambling will never he eradicated and should be taxed and thus discouraged. The Government levies huge taxes on the money which goes through the totalisator and as a result the existence of many racing clujbs is seriously threatened. Conceding that the gambling instinct can never be eradicated from human nature, surely the logical need is to regulate.and direct it into legitimate channels. The way has been constantly pointed out. It is to allow racing clubs to establish double totalisators and to permit the telegraphing .of bets to the race course. This would have beneficial effects all round. The bookmakers' chief opportunity would be taken from them, the Post Office would obtain additional revenue and the Government would have access for taxing purposes to much of the money which now does not pass through the totalisator. A new, and better atmosphere would be brought to the sport of racing itself as owners and jockeys would not then have the facilities or the necessity of laying doubles and commission s with bookmakers. Legal or illegal, the bookmaker lives and thrives because the publie insists on betting facilities. With no legal responsijbility, it is a tribute to the morality of the men who are pursuing this illegal calling that the wagering public is not subjected to more freqtient repudiation of winning bets than is the case. Drive him further underground and the risk of this is materially increased. Without discussing the ethics or the morality of betting it is sufficient that the Government recognises its existence. Let it then place the whole matter on a legalised and commonsense basis and the bookmaker, if he does not entirely disappear, will at least be diminished in nu\mbers.