THE GAMING BILL

Hokitika Guardian, 12 October 1920, Page 1

THE GAMING BILL

MR HUNTER’S MEASURE. all night sitting. HOUSE RESUMED AFTER / BREAKFAST. f . . v (Our Parliamentary Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, October 12, Mr Hunter’s Gaming Amendment Bill provided the House with a long flight s work. 'This Bill proposes to increase the number of totalisator permits by thir-ty-eight in favour of country racing clubs, trotting clubs and hunt clqbs Strong oppositon to the Bill on the part of certain members had already been indicated and there was much debate before a first divison was reached. It appeared that on division Mr Hunter could secure a majority in favour of an increase in the number of totalisator permits, but the opponents of the Bill were in earnest, and they had fortified themselves with ( a very long list of amendments to be moved at the Committee stages. In moving the second ■ reading Mr Hunter did. .not octuipy much time with arguments. He. .probably realised that members of the House had made up their minds one way or the other already and that the vote was the thing that counted. He pointed out that the redistribution of permits was alternative to the issue of extra permits since many of the country district admittedly were not getting their fair share under the present conditions. If the Bill did not pass the existing permits must be redistributed, hut he felt that an increase was desirable, ofi account of the large increase of population dn many of the outlying districts. The people of these districts were unable to get to the Metropolitan meetings, and they could not enjoy a day’s racing at all unless the sport was brought within reasonable distance of their homes. He mentioned an illustration of the anomalies of the present law that the district of Hawkcs Bay had not a single trotting permit. Of the 281 totalisator permits at present in existence, trotting had 59, which the Bill proposed to increase to 79. Quite recently the Minister for Internal Affairs had told a deputation from Pahiatua district that if the Bill did not pass there would have to lie a redistribution of permits. Men who were interested in racing did not desire to see a redistribution. They did not want to interfere with the permits at present held by clubs, and they wished additional permits to be issued in order that justice might be done to districts that at present were not properly provided for.

The Minister for Internal Affairs who followed made a rather involved statement. Originally he stated that lie would vote against the Bill because it was not in the interests of racing. If; the Bill did not pass, lie said, there must lie redistribution, but lie proposed to suggest that the number of extra permits should not be limited to 48. as proposed in the Bill but should be left to the discretion of the Minister, who should have power if extra permits were to lie issued at all to issue them wherever required in consultation with the Racing Authorities. .

Mr Isitt had the floor after Hon Mr Anderson. He was leading the Opposition to the Bill and lie had much To say about the evils of gambling,, and the enormous growth of the turnover of the totalisator,

The debate degenerated into a stonewall, which continued far beyond midnight. A feature of the debate was the expression of goodwill towards Mr Hunter from both sides. It was clear that racing interests were fortunate in having their,Bill in the hands of a particularly popular member, whom everybody wished to please. Hon Ngata moved that the Bill should be read that day six months. As the hours advanced, the Speaker began to insist that the debate should be confined to the amendment, and tcdioiiji/fcpetition avoided. The amendment was defeated by 36 votes to 14. Mr J. M. Dickson (Chalmers) proceeded to oppose the Bill and to claim that he was a "?port,” becauso although- he did not bet, he frequently attended agricultural shows. The tired House refrained from smiling. The break of day found the stonewall ers still talking while Mr Hunter and his supporters waited for the chance,to vote. . At 4.50 a.m. tlie second reading was carried by; 35 votes tol3. Hon J. A. Hanan moved that the Bill he referred to a Committee which should take evidence and report this session. Mr Hunter asked his supporters , ‘to stand by him and help to put the Bill through, Mr Hanan’s motion was defeated by 31 votes to 14. The House went into committee on the Bill about 5.30 a.m. Mr Isitt moved to report .progress, but at 6.52 a.m. the motion was lost on the voices. The House adjourned at 7.30 a.m. for breakfast, and at 9 a.m. resumed the discussion on the first clause of the Bill. PREMIER PROPOSES SETTLEMENT BILL REFERRED TO COMMISSION. On resuming at 9 o’clock the opposi-’ tion to the Gaming Bill proceeded until 9.20, when the Premier arrived. At the 'earliest moment he interposed and said he had not so far taken part in th e discussion or did he intend to do so, because this was not a party question. Members had been voting as they pleased and that was satisfactory-so .far as it went, but he find to look at the matter 'from the point of view of the Government and country. Both sides had had ’a good "go”. There was nothing new in the obstruction. It was the Easiest thing to hold up legislation, but the proper thing to do was

to let the majority rulo. A division was taken and lie believed the majority in favour of the Bill was nearly two to one. He agreed with those who were dissatisfied with the existing conditions. Mr McCombs—Redistribution is what is required. Mr Massey—Yep, redistribution is what is wanted, yet he gould not ignore the division which had taken place. Therefbre he desired to inform the House that he proposed to recommend Cabinet to set up a Commission to go into the whole question, and report on the districts which required more permits and those which, had too many. With that in view he moved to report progress on the Bill. Mr MeCallum protested against the announcement of tlie Premier. It was most unfair to those who had sat up all night and maintained a majority in favour of the Bill. If the Premier was goinig to set up a Commission, then he should take power to grant the increases if the Commission recommended them. Mr Hunter said he would have to j accept the position as outlined by the Premier. He regretted the position, but the Premier was in chaTge of the business of the House. If he could not afford to give more time to the Bill it could not be helped. The Premier had promised to set up a Commission and ho must bow to that decision. Mr Glenn protested that redistribution was unthinkable without increases. That at least was due to the majority in the House which had fought for fourteen hours for the right of the majority. Mr Isitt said if the Commission won' inquire into all the facts and report to the House, he, would accept that. Several other members, including Mr Holland, protested against the waste of time, resulting from an all night sitting. He could just as easily have suggested the Commission at midnight, and have saved so many valuable hours. " Interposing in the discussion, Mr Massey said the Commission would recommend increases if necessary, as well as readjustments. County districts would he fully represented, and if the Commission were not able to report this session, he would consult the Crown Law Officers and see if legislation could he passed this session,, to give effect to the recommendation of the Commission. After further discussion the Premier’s motion was agreed lo on the voices and the House rose at 10.35 a.m. till 7.30 p.m.