GAMING BILL SHELVED ?

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 196, 8 November 1927, Page 13

GAMING BILL SHELVED ?

House Passes Second Reading

NOT EXPECTED AGAIN THIS SESSION

(THE SEX'S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, To-day. THE Gaming* Bill, sponsored by Sir George Hunter, last night ran the gauntlet of a stonewall debate in the House of Representatives and survived the second reading by 20 votes to 14. Earlier an amendment to postpone the for six months was defeated by 28 votes to 21. THE SUN’S representative, however, believes that this will be the last heard of the Gaming Bill this session, and that the Government will not take any steps to put the measure through the committee stage.

AfL'CH doubt must have existed in the minds of the full galleries iii the House of Representatives this evening, if they were swayed by speeches of members upon the merits of Sir George Hunter’s Gaming Bill, which sought to facilitate telegraphic betting and to establish the double totalisator, and to allow the publication of dividends, because members themselves were widely divided as to whether racing would be the sport of kings after the provisions of the Bill began to operate. The allegation was made that the Government was controlled by' the Racing Conference, which was stated to he behind the Bill. It was early indicated that opponents of the Bill were prepared to engage in a long stonewall if necessary. “This is going to be a three and a-quarter mile hurdle handicap uphill,” said Mr. V. H. Potter, Roskill “We have some of the best longdistance racehorses on our side, and there are five furlong ones on the other.”

“Opposition to the Bill came from two distinct sources,” said Sir George in moving the second reading of his measure. Ministers of religion were opposing it on conscientious grounds, but they did not realise the full effects of Its provisions. The second source of opposition was the bookmakers, who were fighting for their own preservation. Opponents of the Bill contended that gambling was on the increase and that the Bill would provide greater facilities for that increase, but he held that if gambling were on the increase it was not by means of the totalisator, but through bookmakers. To point his argument Sir George quoted the totalisator figurges of racing, trotting and hunt; clubs, all of which showed substantial decreases, and the total decrease in the amount of money which passed through the machine last year was £900,400. Objects of the Bill The Bill contained nothing new, continued Sir George, and its provisions were not compulsory. It. was optional for clubs whether they received telegraphed money for investment, for newspapers whether they published dividends, and for clubs whether they established double totalisators on their courses. “The advantage of the totalisator over the bookmaker,” said Sir George, is that investments on toe machine are cash transactions and betting is allowed only through a legalised Instrument, authorised by Parliament, and that betting is allowed only on certain days of the year, and in a place under the authority of the law. Bookmakers make their own odds, but through the totalisator. The public makes odds for itself.

“It is contended,” continued Sir George, “that the telegraphing of money .to the secretary of a racing club is going to increase gambling, but my experience is that if a man thinks he can pick a winner he will find means of backing that winner, and if he cannot back it on the machine he will take his money to a bookmaker. The telegraphing of money will mean that in many cases the backer, instead of leaving his work and going away to the races, will be satisfied with the investment of his money and will remain at work.” Rights of Newspapers Dealing with the clause providing for the publication of dividends, Sir George said that since the totalisator was the legal instrument for gambling, authorised by Parliament, the public had a perfect right to ascertain through the newspapers the amount of dividends. It >vas possible, under present conditions, to ascertain by wireless or otherwise the prices paid by'winners where bookmakers operated, but through the prohibition of the publication of dividends, in many cases backers were driven to bookmakers to find out the dividend paid. 'lt was an infringement of the rights of newspapers. The final clause of the Bill provided for the establishment of double totalisators, which, in the opinion of many persons, would greatly curtail the operations of bookmakers. “For political humbugging recent events in New Zealand would take a lot of beating,” said Mr. M. J. Savage, Auckland West, wh® led off in opposition to the Bill. “One moment we are asked to introduce religious exercises in schools, and next to increase facilities for gambling. This is a racing club's Bill. Voices: Oh, no. Mr. Savage suggested that some members on the Government benches had interests in racehorses and made bets with bookmakers. Mr. W. S. Glenn, Rangitikei: Yes, and not ashamed of it. (Laughter from all. sides of the House.) Continuing, Mr. Savage said that the racing clubs of the Dominion witn the Government were a close corporation. From a moral point of view there was no difference between the bookmaker and the tote. Racing clubs already possessed powers equal to the powers of Tsars of Russia in the past. They were a law unto themselves, a State : within a State, and did as they liked I witli those who took part in the sport. | “Legalise betting, and then it will be ; moral, that is the point of the Bill,” ! said Mr. Savage. “Autocratic Control’’

Mr. Potter accepted the Bill as an indication that Cabinet was governed by an autocratic Racing Conference, which in turn was governed by Sir George Clifford, “the biggest autocrat in New Zealand*”

Mr. Potter’s idea was to control betting by the establishment of a system of Tattersalls, which he said would provide money for public facilities such as good roads (and incidentally do away with the petrol tax recently imposed). It was of no use trying to exterminate the bookmaker. They ‘ were like tomatoes; you could cut thein down but they sprung up imme- ■ diately. “I am not a racing man, and do not go to the races,” Mr. Potj ter said, "but I am not opposed to the

sport. It is not the sport of kings that it was. It has sunk from that. This Government has been, and is, under the of the Racing Conference of New Zealand. He believed the Bill would be welcomed by the bookmakers. Mr. Potter was called to order two or three times, once for implying “rank hypocrisy” against members of the House, and again for alleging that a member of the House, Mr. Glenn, bet with bookmakers. When the Speaker stopped him, he said, “I do not infer hypocrisy against a member of the House, but I say that if anyone outside ” Mr. Speaker: The honourable member is very ingenious, but he must withdraw. Mr. Potter: I withdraw. It was not so much ingenuity as a desire to make a point. Sir George Clifford had described racing as an industry, but he did not say whether it was primary or secondary. The history of previous legislation ‘dealing with racing was traced by Mr. J. McCombs, Lyttelton, who quoted figures to show tl*at from 1910 to 1919 the amount of annual totalisator investments increased from less than £2,000,000 to £5,720,000. “It is a great and increasing evil,” he said. Not Ashamed of Bet “A wonderful display o£ cant," were Mr. Glenn’s terms for the arguments of previous opposing debaters, but he withdrew the word “cant” at Mr. Speaker’s request. Mr. Glenn took exception to Mr. Potter’s remark about betting with bookmakers, denying that he had done so recently. “There is nothing to be ashamed of in a good healthy bet,” said Mr. Glenn. “What’s wrong with it? The churches do not miss out racing men in this country when it comes to asking for help, and neither does the Salvation Army.” Mr. H. T. Armstrong, Christchurch East, maintained that the Bill would enable every crook in New Zealand to use the totalisator by medium of the telegraph service. He objected to the Prime Minister’s action in giving the Bill preference, pointing out that recently it was far’down on the orderpaper. Mr. Armstrong moved that the second reading of the Bill should be taken this day six months. Sir Joseph Ward, Invercargill, disapproved of the procedure adopted with a view to alteration of an Act now on the Statute Book. This Act had been initiated by the Government of the day, and should not be altered subsequently at the instigation of a private member of thejHouse. Competition With Bookmakers That competition would help to scotch bookmakers was the view adadvanced by the Hon. G. J. Anderson, Minister of Labour, who declared his intention of supporting the Bill. The bookmaker lived largely by taking doubles, and if the Bill were passed it would be possible to compete with him. Mr. J. A. Lee, Auckland East: Why not compete with the burglar? With deep scorn, Mr. W. E. Parry, Auckland Central, pointed out the inconsistency of the Government in making the taking of tickets in Tattersalls illegal, while it sought to convert its own telegraph service into a betting machine. The Racing Conference should have its wings clipped because of some of the things it was doing in the government of sport. Jockeys called before the conference were not allowed the services of counsel, yet they might be interrogated by a skilled barrister, who was a member of the conference.

It was 12.45 before the division was taken on Mr. Armstrong’s amendment, which was accepted, at that stage, as an indiction of how members felt on the measure. The House decided by 2S to 21 against the amendment. The division list is: For the Amendment (21) Armstrong McCombs Burimtt McKeen Bartram Martin Hickson. J. M. Mason, H. G. R. Fraser Parrv Henare Potter Holland, H. Ransom Howard Rolleston. F J ! Jones, D. Savage i Jordan Ye itch j Lee, J. A. Against (28) Anderson Hunter At more Link la ter Hell Lysnar < 'ampbell Mason, J Coates Xosvvorthy Dickie Pom are Dickson, J. S. Rhodes Eliott Rolleston, J. C. !• ield Seddon Glenn Sykes Hamilton, J. R. Taplev Hawke n Ward TTocklv Williams Horn Young Pairs.— For the Bill: McLeod, Reid. Hudson, Smith, Macmillan, Walter. Nash Bellringer, Lee. E. P„ Forbes, Wilford! Against the Bill: WrigliT, Bitchener, Holland, H. E., Stewart, Sullivan. Forsyth, McLennan, Uru. Luke, Sidey, Xgata? The debate on the second reading was then continued. It is possible that a very long stoneI wall debate would have carried the Bill on but for the attitude of Mr. Coates, who could see in the early hours that there was no hope of getting the Bill through the committee j stage at this sitting, and so arranged procedure that those sponsoring the Bill agreed to take the second-reading division, advocates of the Bill knowing that they had a majority in favour. The second reading was carried by ; 20 to 14, members voting as given below:— For the Bill (20) Atmore Mason, J. j Bell Xosworthy Coates Pomare Dickson, J. f?. Rhodes i Eliott Rolleston, J. C. Field Seddon U Glenn Sykes Hawken Taplev 1 HockJy Williams Hunter Young Against the Bill (14) : Armstrong Martin Bartram , Mason. H. G. R. Fraser Tarry Henare Potter . Howard Rolleston, F. J. .lordan Savage Lee, J. A. Ward