GAMING LAW.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 July 1920, Page 5

GAMING LAW.

TO ELIMINATE BOOKMAKERS.

THE PROPOSAL APPROVED. A "DOUBLE TOTE" WANTED. By Telwapb.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night.. In the House of Representatives this afternoon, in moving the second reading of the Gaming Act Amendment Bill, the Hon. G. J. Anderson said it was apparent that the influence of bookmakers had a prejudicial effect on horseracing, and the only thing to be done wm to make the penalty lor bookmakIng more severe. Some bookmakers were unscrupulous in dealing with clients. The Minister read circulars showing how bookmakers were pteparing to evade the regulations to prevent the transmission of betting telegrams. The Government was going to have a trial of strength with bookmakers, and it was hoped to have the support of the House. The Minister believed that many evils arose from betting with bookmakers, w4io sometimes extended credit, while totalisator transactions were on a cash basis. ;'

Mr. W. E. Parry {Auckland Central) said he would move in committee, an additional 'clause to conserve the interests of jockeys and others employed in facing. He said the Bill appeared to be designed to monopolise betting by restricting it* to the totalisator. Mr. Hunter (Waipawa) said that if the Minister would agree to legalise a 'double" totalisator, and authorise the publication of dividends in the newspapers, the bookmakers' occupation would be gone. Mr. Wilfqrd said he proposed to mova the deletion of a section in the main (Act which prevented money being tele-* -graphed to secretaries of racing clubs for investment on the machine. When the House resumed in the evening, Mr. Newman (Manawatu) congratulated the Government on the proposals in the Bill, which were calculated to eliminate the bookmaker, whom he contrasted unfavorably with the totalisator. Mr. Isitt said the Bill was the best measure ever brought into the House for the elimination of the bookmaker, and it would test the honesty of..racing men as to whether they really wished to purify the sport of racing. Conclug- , ing, Mr. . Isitt characterised the advocacy of the "double" totalisator as pure hypocrisy. It would not eliminate bookmakers, and was not intended to. , • Mr ■ Witty • said he would give the BUI hjs qualified support, as he thought > it might do some good, but he would favor the proposal to legalise the i "double" totalisator. ! Mr. GlenV would support the Bill so for as it calculated to abolish the bookmaker. As a sport he favored the reinstatement of the "double" totalisator, . Mr. McLeod said he doubted if the Bill would dq much to abolish the bookmaker* The only way to do that was to provide people with other and ample i facilities for betting. He therefore I favored the "double" totalisator.

Mr. Holland condemned the proposal in the Bill which took away from bookmakers the right to bet, while preserving that right to .others. Mr. Camrjbell favored the publication of totalisator dividends in the Press, as people who wanted to know the o"dds were driven into the arms of the bookmaker.

Mr. McCombs said there was no high motive behind the effort to get rid of the bookmaker. It was being done simply to increase the profits 6f racing clabs •through the totalizator. He considered this was a question which should bo settled bythe people, and to the motion .that the Bill be read a second time he moved an amendment that It be a recommendation to the Government to take a referendum on the questions of the abolition of the boolcmaKer and the abolition of the totalisator. The amendment waß not debated, and, on a division, it was lost by 49 votes to W, The Bill was then read a second time on the voices.