Opposition to the Gaming Bill

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 84, 30 June 1927, Page 6

Opposition to the Gaming Bill

OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY By “EARLY BIRD.” HOW very little the ministers of religion know of “New Zealand's greatest curse,” the gambling habit! One of them has declared that the Gaming Bill to come before the Lower House nest week is calculated to increase this “curse.” Obviously these well-intentioned gentlemen blinded by their prejudices against horse racing, have leaped without looking, in that they have not made themselves aware of the contents of the measure they are opposing.

TN adopting their militant attitude to the Gaming Bill —the original of which was so ruthlessly “slaughtered” (to quote the Prime Minister’s own words) in the dying hours of last session, when cabin trunks were already packed for the Imperial Conference—the clergy, or some of them, as represented by the Ministers’ Association, have once more brought under the notice of a long-tolerant community, sporting and otherwise, their customary dogmatic views, trotted out with religious consistency whenever “totalisator” is mentioned. LIKE THE RED FLAG Gambling on horse racing is damned by and large, but not a word is said of the “curse” when the visitor to a church bazaar is invited to take a ticket in a raffle, or is urged to “put it down thick and heavy on the old mud hook” at the crown and anchor board. The totalisator, claimed to be more beneficial to the State than any church bazaar, is the bete noir of the clergy. The Gaming Bill comprises three clauses, and three only, with nothing in the way of increased race dates concealed between the lines. The first clause is one to permit newspapers to publish dividends. Another is to allow money to be telegraphed to clubs for investment on the totalisator. And the third clause is the introduction of the double totalisator. GAGGED THE PRESS Let these clauses be reviewed seriatim. The right, an undeniable one, of the liberty of the Press to publish dividends, should never have been taken away. It was just a concession to meet the demands of the opponents of the Bill when it passed Parliament many years ago. What have the clergy against this provision on this occasion? No doubt it is the fear that the publishing of dividends paid by wininng horses will stimulate betting on horse racing. Bosh! It may suit the clergy at times to gag the Press; at others they are most probably pleased that the Press of this country is free. Are these gentlemen aware that prices paid by winning horses are cabled to Australia and other parts of the world, published there, and that these papers are circulated in this country? Had the Press of New Zealand decided on concerted action when the measure was introduced it would never have become law. STATE AND CLUBS ROBBED The two other clauses, providing for the telegraphing of investments to racing clubs and the installation of the double totalisator, are closely related. Both explain themseves. At present the bookmakers are getting the money that by every right should go through the totalisator. Are the oppositionists aware of just how much these bookmakers handle? It will no doubt surprise them to learn that one penciller, not in busines in each of the four centres, stated that he had held as much as £4OO on one race, and this in a town where he was but one of many operating? Why should not this money go to the totalisator, so as to benefit the Government and the racing clubs? Both get a percentage of the amount invested, and in addition the revenue received by the Post Office in telegraphic charges would amount to a considerable sum. The Government is as a rule so ready to snap up all the taxes it can from the racing authorities that there can be but one reason why it has not sanctioned this course—fear of its majority at the hands of the minority.

So far from the telegraphing of investments tending to increase betting, it will divert through the proper channel the money now being handled by bookmakers. Does this fact in itself appeal to the reverend gentlemen who have been so busy the last few days sounding what amounts to a false alarm? FORTUNE IN DOUBLE BETTING The reinstating of the double totalisator does not mean a new vogue in gambling. Although bookmakers accept money at totalisator odds, with their unfair limits, every one of them will admit that it is to the betting on doubles they look to to make their profits. By double betting it is almost impossible for the layer to lose, for he makes his “book” accordingly to win, and if he does lose on any double it is because he does not know his business, or has failed to canvass his clients sufficiently. More fortunes have been won by laying doubles than by accepting money at totalisator odds. There is an immense business now going on in this form of betting, and likewise the Government and racing clubs should derive the benefit from it, and not the woolbroker. This is another instance where money is simply being diverted, through the double machine, from the bookmaker to the totalisator. HARMLESS MEASURE Therefore, it is apparent that the proposed legislation is practically harmless. Why all the fuss? Will our clergy still maintain that the new Gaming Bill will tend to increase betting on horse racing? Do they prefer to drive the bettor into the arms of the bookmakers, and, being caught betting with them, to have to face the opprobrium of police prosecution (persecution?), and henceforth to be branded as something akin to criminals in that they, like felons, are debarred from going on a racecourse? And all because they bet with bookmakers, no doubt solely on account of the fact that they were not provided with facilities to make their investments per medium of the legalised channel, the totalisator. Many people make a hobby of church going, and of patronising church bazaars. Some prefer the races, others football and cricket. The ,clergy undoubtedly hope to stamp out horse racing and betting. If they succeed, what will follow*? Even they do not know. But they must be aware of the penchant Britishers have for a gamble, whether it be at horse racing, the stock exchange or church bazaars. A LAME EXCUSE Is it that the Ministers’ Associations are more concerned at striking a body blow at the liberty of the subject in the guise of an attempt to prevent an increase in betting, which is the lame excuse advanced in support of their opposition to the Gaming Bill? On the contrary, the new measure will if anything tend to decrease betting, for the telegraphic charges on investments would naturally be heavy, r. d a deterrent, while at the same t» le it would knock out the bookmaker, w r ho would be forsaken by his clients. On the other hand, it will ensure that the money goes to the proper authorities. In their blind opposition to the Gaming Bill, the Ministers’ Associations are actually encouraging the bookmakers by keeping his clients for him. This aspect of the question is something that the clergy would do well to ponder. Even they should not rush in where angels would fear to tread.