The Press Thursday, October 30, 1924. Labour and the Gaming Bill.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18217, 30 October 1924, Page 8

The Press Thursday, October 30, 1924. Labour and the Gaming Bill.

We had not thought it might, be necessary (o refer again to the opposition of Labour to the Gaming 151 il, but the letter from the Eev. J. K. Archer, who writes as Yice-Presidont of the New Zealand Labour Party, shows that there remains some misunderstanding concerning this measure. As we pointed out yesterday, there iv.-is no reason why the Labour Party should not have prepared and introduced a Bill of their own embodying the proposals outlined by Mr W. E. Parry in his amendment to the motion for the third reading. The Labour members have never been backward in bringing in Bills; during this session they introduced measures dealing with miners' phthisis, workers' compensation, shops and offices, the nationalisation of coal mines, the Arbitration Act, Sunday fishing, and "motherhood "endowment." They did not fight for these measures as they fought against the Gaming Bill, and since it cannot be believed that the subjects we have mentioned touch interests which Labour regards as inferior in importance to the interests of those concerned in racing, how can we feel that the stonewall had that sincere and simple inspiration been claimed for it? The Labour Party" would have had very little chance, certainly, of getting a Gaming Bill through the House, but it could have said all it wanted to say on' the motion to introduce, upon which, nowadays, full debate is allowed. But since it could not get itß proposals into a Government Bill anyway, it would have been at no disadvantage. As for not having a chance of even a first reading for a Bill of its own, Mr Archer could not have made that statement if he had paid attention to the procedure of the House. Almost any Bill is allowed a first reading. The second point upon which Mr Archer is quite mistaken is the cause of the collapse of the stonewall. The obstruction,- he suggests, was cut short by a trick. Here there is no room for mere opinion, for the facts are plain. Through some obviously honest confusion the clause which was being stonewalled slipped through, but on protest being made the House, on the recommendation of Mr Massey and Mr Wilford, unanimously agreed to cancel the passago and to place the stonewallers in full possession of the position which they had lost. This was a most unusual concession, but a rrery proper one, and if the stonewallers chose not to accept it and carry on, that was their fault, and it is really not honest to talk of "a trick" or "a "foul." Our correspondent need not suppose that we condemn obstruction as such. On the contrary, we should be sorry, as we have already explained, to see a minority in the House deprived of the means of arousing public opinion to take special notice of any particular Bill. But in this case the country was certainly not with the stonewallers, and the House knew it. As for the charges which our correspondent brings against the owners of racehorses, the grievances he alleges are purely imaginary. If they had any serious foundation in fact there would be nobody willing to carryon the sport of racing. It is grossly unfair that such imputations should be made against the owners of horses and the governors of the sport, even though the charges do lose some of their seriousness through their being advanced by people capable of speaking i of "slave owners." I