WHAT ARE, THE ISSUES?

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 304, 5 September 1929, Page 4

WHAT ARE, THE ISSUES?

A report on petitions for amendments of the Gaming Act' was talked out in the House of Representatives, writes the Evening Post. , The discussion was not marked by any noticeable disposition to “ stonewalling.” Indeed, the debate did not cover some aspects of the issue which might reasonably have been discussed. The talking out, therefore, proves conclusively how unfair it would be to adopt the course suggested by a deputation of Ministers and limit discussion of the Gaming Amendment Bill to half an hour or half a day. The present law, in our opinion, imposes unwarranted and absurd restrictions. Especially is this so with regard to the publication of dividends. While it is legal to declare dividends, the case against I publication of ’ the declarations, as

Mr. H. E. Holland pointed out, is very weak. The arguments for and against telegraphing bets to. the totalisator are not so clear, and they are made more confused by emphasis upon the effect on the bookmakers of the removal of restrictions. It is undeniable, we think, that the right to telegraph bets would divert at least some of the business now done illegally with the bookmakers. Gambling which is now hidden would be brought to the surface; but . this Is not the only issue. Another greater : ssue of principle is: should the I State control of an indispensable public service be used as a means of moral censorship ? The Post and Telegraph service is a State monopoly. No private person can enter into competition with it or institute a private telegraphic or postal service if the Government facilities are restricted. In these circumstances it is essential that the monopoly right should not be abused.

Obviously, it is right to forbid the use of postal facilities against the law—to stop the transmission of obscene -matter, for example, as such obscenity would be punishable under other circumstances. But how does this affect totalisator betting? It is quite within the law to bet on the totalisator, and it is quite within the law to telegraph money for legal purposes. Yet it is illegal to telegraph money for investment on the legalised totalisator. * The issue has been confused by stating the proposal to remove the restrictions as a s proposal to make the telegraph office ' a totalisator agency. This is not exact. It is really a proposal to re-

move restrictions imposed in the past and limiting puo.ic use of ordinary' telegraphic facilities. On principle we do not see how the restrictions can be logically maintained. " ■ The 1 - only issue is: should they be .'maintained as a measure of expediency on the ground that it is better to suffer a continued infringement of public rights than to run the risk of those rights being abused ? This is an issue which may reasonably be considered. If Parliament will approach the question with an endeavour to bring about a settlement on sound principles the time given to debate will not be wasted; but we hope there will be no attempt to block

amendment of the law by prolonged discussion which has no purpose but obstruction. <