On the section. I understand that the Minister is aware that a certain section of the public is concerned about the opportunity that exists through the introduction of Section 34 for the alleviation to some extent of a grievance which they have. Perhaps the Minister will understand what I am leading up to if I first of all point out to him that we have licensed bookmakers in this country and that licensed bookmakers operate mainly under the Racing Board Act. They are tax collectors for the Government to a very great extent and they are bound to fulfil all their obligations notwithstanding the Gaming Act. If they do not, if they default and if they are reported to the Racing Board, the board may put them out of business. On the other hand, they have no means of enforcing the law against a client. I am not suggesting that the Gaming Act should be so altered as to permit bookmakers to claim with full force of law for gambling debts, but I do feel that the Minister should recognise that since a certain action took place against the stewards or against the Conyngham Club, as it is known here, there is no means of dealing with defaulters even to the extent of warning them off racecourses.
We are not in the position in which bookmakers are in England where you have a Tattersalls. If a person is reported to Tattersalls not only is the warning-off effective in England but such a person is warned off even in this country. I am not in a position to make a formal suggestion yet, but I was about to discuss the section with a view to ascertaining if the Minister would give any indication that he has something in mind to meet the situation so that if not I would probably try to draft an amendment for the Report Stage that might be acceptable. What I have in mind is this: If the Minister can say—I do not know whether he can or not—on behalf of the Cabinet, or if the Attorney-General can say or indicate that the other Act would be amended so as to restore the Conyngham Club to some status enabling it to enforce—if you like—the law against either the bookmakers or the clients, then I would be quite satisfied with such an undertaking. If not, would the Minister agree that there should be some limited rights attaching to the licensed bookmaker for the recovery of debts? What I intended to suggest was that he might be able to say that the limit to which a court could go would be to grant an instalment order, the court to fix the instalment, and that in the event of the death of either party to the transaction, the whole order would become void. In other words, the family of a very imprudent person would be protected against loss of property arising from a gambling debt. I do not know if that could be done in law but I do believe in justice there should be some protection for these people. They are licensed; they are recognised by law; they collect taxes for the State, if they default they are put out of business but they are not in a position to have any means of collecting from their clients if, when they bring a client to court, he pleads the Gaming Act. I would be satisfied if there was an undertaking that something will be done to bring into being again the Conyngham Club so that it could act as Tattersalls act in England.
I do not know if that can be done under this Bill. Perhaps the Minister might give some indication as to whether or not there are some means of avoiding what I refer to as a hardship, and a very grave hardship, on a section of our community. Quite a number of people are involved. They give considerable employment and so forth. Whether or not people like bookmakers and gambling, the fact remains that we have by legislation in its fullest form recognised their existence and, consequently, I would ask the Minister at this stage if he could indicate any view on the matter.