THROUGH BOTH HOUSES.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18217, 30 October 1924, Page 9

THROUGH BOTH HOUSES.

GAMING BILL PASSED. FINAL STAGES IN LOWER CHAMBER. NO DIVISION CALLED FOR. (srICUL TO "TXE PMSB. - ') WELLINGTON, October 29. After a long and somewhat dreary debate, in which members repeated their former criticisms to a great extent, the Gaming Act Amendment Bill passed its third reading in. the House of Representatives at 2.20 a.m. to-day without a division. There were, of course, strange political bedfellows during the acrimonious discussions that have taken place on the Bill. It was interesting, for instance, to watch Messrs Isitt and Wright consorting with the Labour members in their endeavours to block tba Bill. Mr Isitt made an attack ou ff bat be termed "the capitalistic press." After replying to statements eonccrning this new found brotherhood with the Labour Party on the Gsming BUlj by pointing out that when the Bill was before the Houso last session he had had the support of leveral of the Labour members, Mr Isitt raised a laugh by stating that at a certain stage of tho stonewall on the measure he returned to the House and found "bis party" in confusion in the tabby. A little latcr Mr laitt delivered a iested attack upon the Press of the country. "I don't know whether it Is the case," he said, "but I have .-just bad a note handed to mo to the effect that the Press are taking no notes of ID y romarks. If that is true I am very ({lad it is so, because it supports all that I say about the manifest unfairness of this finance-controlled Press. Fight any moral evil, drink or gambling, and you haye the whole of the Frees of the colony against you, nnd they are unscrupulous in the methods they adopt in misrepresenting your attitude and your actions." Mr J. McCombs: Come over here, brother! Come over here! (Laughter.) The House got a lot of fun out of Mr Edie, who does not pose as an authority on racing, and got out of his depth in the Gaming Bill debate last night. Ho was telling the Honse he had been informed that bookmakers were "betting doubles, whatever that meant." ~,- . , V Mr Wilford (pulling Mr Edie's, leg): Yon mean doing it twice over. Mr Edie (in all innocence): Tea, that's it. The House rippled with laughter. Mr Edie said that New Zealand hvti-kmakers were laying doubles on two New Zealand horses, Gincase and another, for the Melbourne Cup. Mr Wilford: Gincase? You mean Guncaae. (Laughter.) Mr Edie: Gincase, and both these horses are still in New Zealand. Mr Corrigan: If it's a gincase it will never get there. Mr Edie had strongly condemned the increase.in permits, and had said that if he. never came back to Parliament again ie waa pleased to have done his part in crushing the Bill. The Prime Minister had stated that he once owned a racehorse, but disposed of it when his sons were growing up. What about other people's sons* The Prime Minister "did not care a fig" about them. It would only be a short time before efforts would be made to allow racing on Sunday. Mr Edie surprised members at the end of his speech by itating emphatically that if the Bill passed: he would apply for two of the permits to come to his district. The Hon. A. D. MeLeod neatly turned the tables on Mr Edie by expressing wonder at his want of sincerity. The member for Bruce, said Mr MeLeod, was solicitous in regard to the sons of the Prime Minister and others, but what about the sons of fathers in the Clutha district, for which Mr Edie was going to demand the two extra permits if the Bill became law. ,V The debate ended with the Hon. J. "i Q. Coates, who said he was proud to be a member of the Racing Conference. Mr Langstone: We criticised their policy. Mr Coates: Ton said they were gamblers and were {sweating jockeys and others. ■„■ Mr Langstone: .%p they do by thoir policy. '•'* . . Mr Coates: That is an admission that the Racing Conference manipulates the public to suit their own ends. Mr J. A. Lee: So thev do. Mr Coates: I have been blackened for being a member of the Racing Conference. Mr Sullivan: We leave blackening to you. Mr Coates: Hon. members are known by their associates. What do you meant asked Mr Snllivan. Mr Coates: 3Vhat I have said. Mr Sullivan: It is plain dirt. , Mr Langstone: You have a lot of erooks on the Conference Mr Coates: Is Sir George Clifford a CTOokT Mr Langstone: Is he clean? Mr Coates said the President of the Baring Conference was one of the cleanest sports ever seen on a raceWrorso. BILL IN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. PASSED WITHOUT AMENDMENT. vSPICUi TO "TH* PBBSS.") WELLINGTON, October 29. In the Legislative Council this afternoon, tho Hon. Sir Francis Bell, moving tie second reading of the Gaming Act Amendment Bill, said the principal r clause proposed to increase trotting Permits by 19, and racing permits by 12. He appealed to the Council not to amend the Bill, but to pass it or Wject it. The Hon. Sir Edwin Mitchelson said M would support the Bill. Tho GovWnment, however, had left out clauses fliat should never have been left out. s» e or two clauses that were in the *HI of last year, notably that respect- % dealing with undesirables on raceWttses, were omitted. At present, if aaaj, who had been ejected from a «mrse went back, he could not again felted. Last year's Bill provided *W over this difficulty. no e&fesded that to allow money to be *«> graphed to the machine would be a m blow to the bookmakers. The per- **» sought wer» the same in number

as recommended by the Gaming Commission of 1921, which produced the best roport yet made on racing in New Zealand. In 1904 New Zealand bad 236 days' racing, and the population was 900,000. In 1924, with a population of 1,323,000, thero were seven fewer permits. The Hon. W. Mclntyre supported the Bill, ,-ind also favoured the telegraphing of money to the machine and the publication of dividends. He thought the bookmakers would be killed if money could be telegraphed to the machine. Bookmakers were springing up everywhere, but the big bookmakers never were convicted. People would not bet with bookmakers on n £7 10» limit if they could telegraph to the machine without a limit. The Legislature should recognise that gambling \v;j« an instinct in human beings. The Hon. 11. L. Michel, in supporting the Bill, said that one of his reasons wa s that he hoped that its passage would result in another trotting permit for the Westland Club. He would not support an amendment allowing money to bp telegraphed to the tota!isator in case it endangered the Bill. The Hon. V. H. Heed paid he would support the Bill because North Auckland needed more permits. He favoured the proposal to permit telegraphing to the machine. He thought the prolonged opposition which the Bill had met already was due to the fear of some suck clause as telegraphing to the machine being inserted in the Council. ' 'Hypocritical Prohibition. '' The Hon. Mark Cohen said betting waa increasing in New Zealand, as was shown bv the increase in the totalisator turnover from £2,000,000 in 1904 to £8,000,000 in 1924. Frequently public servants had got into trouble through betting, but if people had to go to the telegraph office and pay cash for a bet that, would lessen the trouble. To prevent tho publication of dividends W2fl hypocritical, and as the dividends could be obtained from the bookmakers soon after the race was run it was futile. Ho considered it scandalous that the Wellington Trotting Club had only one one-day permit a year.

The Hon. Sir William Hall-Jones regretted that time should be wasted on the Bill, and said ho would vote against it. Tbo Hon. G. M. Thomson opposed the increase of totalisator permits, lie had always been uncompromisingly hostilo to gambling. Thero had been talk of sinister influence concerning the opponents to tho Bill, but ho did not know how this could bo said. Perhaps people who said this had the bookmaker in mind, and personally he thought the bookmaker a parasite. The Hon. E. W. Alison spoke in favour of tho publication of dividends, and said he would move to permit the use of tho double totalisator. Betting with bookmakers was illegal, and was it not well so to legislate that the observance of the law would be easy? The Hon. W. H. T.-iggs advocated the publication of dividends, and said he would move to that effect. The second reading was carried by 23 votes to 7, the Noes being the Hons. Barr, Gow, Sir William HallJones, Ixard, MacGregor, Malcolm, and Thomson. Amendments Bejected. In Committee, the Hon. J. Barr moved the' deletion of the clause which increases the number of permits by 31, but the amendment was defeated by 21 votes to 7 (the Hons. Barr, Gow, Sir William Hall-Jones, MacGregor, Newman, Thomson, and Triggs). The other members did not press the amendments they had forecasted, and the Bill was put through its final stages on the voices, without any amendment having been made in the measure a 8 it left the Lower House.