RACING BILL

Taranaki Daily News, 3 November 1921, Page 5

RACING BILL

DEFEATED IN THE HOUSE. NO FURTHER PERMITS. A MAJORITY OF EIGHT. TARANAKI MEMBERS’ VOTES. The Racing Bill, the first step towards bringing into operation the recommendations of the Racing Commission for the granting of more permits, was defeated in the House last night by 36 votes to 28. This means that the recommendations will not be enforced, no further action will be taken, there will be no more permits, and matters will remain as at present.

By Telegraph—-Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. In the House to-night Mr. Massey moved the second reading of the Gaming Amendment Bill. In doing so he said the Bill was not the final stage of the question, because the Bill was absolutely valueless without the allocations. If the second reading was carried to-night he did not propose to bring It before the House again for some time. They might not have other questions so interesting to discuss, but they had matters more important. The Financial Statei meat would be brought down to-morrow night, and there was the tariff question to be disposed of, and that business could not be interfered with by this Bill. Continuing, Mr. Massey said in reply to questions that if the Bill was negatived that was the end of the Racing Commission’s report. He proceeded to eulogise the composition and work of the commission. Their report provided, first, that there should be a certain amount of readjustment in connection with permits; secondly, there was an increase affirmed in connection with country districts; and, thirdly, the rectification of certain abuses. Those were the three principles governing the report. In his opinion there had been a great improvement in racing during the past twenty years, but he would say that proprietary clubcs could not be tolerated for a moment, and those concerned in such clubs must set to work and out their house in order, and the sooner the better. So far as the Government could do it they were out to rectify abuses and place racing on a sound footing. NO FURTHER GAMBLING. He then quoted from the report to support the contention that the increase of days proposed would not increase gambling, days having been taken away from the large cnetres and given to country districts, where the attendance was not so large. He fully anticipated that owing to the financial stringency the totalisator receipts would decrease by at least twentylive per cent, during the present racing season. That season was now well on, and therefore he expected the existing arrangements would continue for this year, because some permits would go to country districts where there were no facilities for racing and these facilities could not be got in six months. Mr. Massey again reiterated that if the Bill was not passed that was the end of the matter. If it was agreed to he appealed to members to assist the Minister in charge of racing matters to bring down a set of resolutions, which will be fair and impartial, giving effect to the recommendations of the report. He did not think the report could be adopted in its entirety, because there were some districts mentioned in that report to which he was not sure justice had been done. Mr. T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition) said he would support the Bill because he wanted to see an increase in permits. Frankly he wanted an additional i rotting permit for Wellington, and the only way it could be got was to get an increase. Otherwise it could only be obtained at the expense of some other club, and that he did not want. He agreed with the Premier that if the Bill was not carried that was the end of the commission’s report, but he was voting for both the Bill and the report. LABOR LEADER’S VIEWS. Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labor Party) said the question was being attacked in the wrong way. They should first decide whether or not the totalisator was to continue in connection with racing. He did not think the commission’s recommendations would increase gambling, but that was not the point. The point was that they would be spending hours discussing the allocation of permits and not touching the foundation of the question—that is, whether gambling should or should not continue in connection with racing. He only wished members would display the same enthusiasm in discussing larger questions which touched our very economic existence. He suggested the question of whether or not gambling should continue in connection with racing should be referred to a vote of the people, and he intended to move an amendment to that effect. That, he thought, was the easiest way of avoiding a long and unseemly wrangle in which the House would otherwise be engaged. Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) said that in New South Wales the people last year spent £5 per head on racing ventures, and in New Zealand, with our one and a quarter million people, we last year spent £l7 per head on racing enterprises. He did not agree that the recommendations of the commission would not increase gambling. He did not believe the Premier would for a moment sanction State lottries, because that would be making money out of the degradation of the people. Why, then, should the right be given to racing clubs which would be unanimously denied to the State ? Unfortunately this question was not being decided by the moral aspect; it was being determined by the fact that clubs in which members were interested had been given, or had lost, a permit. He hoped members would feel the appeal which had been made to support the real interests of the people and vote against an increase of permits. “AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE.” The Hon. Sir William Herries said the real issue before the House at the moment was whether or not permits were to be increased; the allocation would come later. Last session the majority of the House favored an increase of permits. Some of those who had not favored an increase would this session vote against the Bill, and if the Bill was defeated it could only be defeated by an unholy alliance between those who did not favor the oojnnaißSion*

er’s report and those who would kill the totalisator altogether. He suggested the Bill should be passed, when he believed all differences could be adjusted. VARIED VIEWS. Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South) said he demanded, a readjustment of trotting permits, because they were at present rather top heavy; otherwise he was prepared to leave things as they are to-day. Mr. F. F. Hockly (Rotorua) would support the Bill and the commission’s report, which if given effect to would not increase gambling. The Hon. G. J. Anderson said t'he commission set up by the Government was a good commission and the proper course for the House to follow was to accept their report. Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said he must vote against the Bill, but if it was carried he would vote to give effect to the commission’s report. Mr. A. D. McLeod (Wairarapa) regretted that a more definite opportunity had not been given to the House to vote for or against the commission’s report, but failing that he would vote for the Bill, although his district Had lost a day’s racing. The bookmakers were at the back of proposals to hold a referendum on the subject of the totalisator, and they were prepared to spend many thousands of pounds to kill the totalisator. If the commission’s report did nothing else than to draw attention to the danger of proprietory clubs the money spent on it was a good investment. Mr. W. D. Lysnar said he could not vote for the Bill unless he could get an assurance from the Premier that existing permits would not be disturbed. The Dominion was growing and extra permits were required. SECOND READING LOST. Mr. Massey said if members wished to avoid a wrangle which might arise in allocating permits the Government would take the responsibility of allocating them. Mr. Lysnar: “Will you leave existing permits undisturbed.” Mr. Massey: “I make no promise.” Mr. C. E. Statham (Dunedin Central) contended the House should have had a straight-out vote for or against the report. The Bill, with backing by the Government, must have a certain amount of influence upon members, therefore the vote would not be perfectly free from party. Tetsonally he was against an increase in permits, and would vote against the Bill. At 1.30 a.m. the Premier rose to reply. He indicated that the combination of members which was taking place was likely to do grave injustice to the country clubs by depriving them of their share of sport. On a division the motion that the Bill be read a second time was lost by 36 votes to 28. Mr. R. Masters and Mr. E. Dixon voted against the Bill, and Messrs. S. G. Smith, W. T. Jennings and O. Hawken supported the Bill.