"STONEWALLING"

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 89, 12 October 1920, Page 4

"STONEWALLING"

MORE RACING PERMITS

BIG MAJORITY HELD UP

MB. HUNTER'S BILL" ATTACKED

Stonewalling of a most determined character was evident as soon as Mi.. G. Hunter (Waipawa) moved.^ the second reading of the Gaining Amendment Jgill, in the House of Representative* lash night. The Billi which was brought forward a* the result of a, non-party meating of members held earlier in the session, proposes to increase the number of racing permits by •38 annually. The second reading was moved "by Mr. Hunter soon after 8 o'clock last night; at 7.30 a.m. to-day the House adjourned) for breakfast, having passed the second reading, and having gone into Committee. The matter was taken -up again at 9 a.m. Mr. Hunter, in opening his remarks, j thanked the Prime Minister for the op* portuuity of bringing the Bill hefore the House, and asked him to extend his good offices further, and allow the measure to go through all stages at that ( sitting. The Prime Minister smiled broadly and /members generally laughed: V Mr. Hunter explained that it had been intended originally to propose that the racing should be increased by 58 days a year, made up of 27 extra days for racing clubs, 23 for trotting clubs, and 8 for hunt dubs, but this had now been reduced to 38 days, of which racing clubs absorbed 10, trotting clubs 20, and hunt clubs 8 days. Members interested in trotting and hunt clubs had agreed to the amended figures, but, as he nad been unable to secur© a, meeting of the racing members, he himself had fixed the figure at ten. To show the 'great need lor extra permits, ha quoteM the long list of applications, 69 in all, l'eceived from all parts of the Dominion. The Minister of Internal Affairs had avid that if the Bill did not pass there would have to b^'redistribution of the present permits, so that justice might be done to the- country clubs. The Bill was a moderate and reasonable one, and provided 1 for a fair distribution,

FOUR QUESTIONS. Mr. L. M: Isitt (Christchurch North) said he would oppose tha Bill He urged that the Bill should be debated without recrimination, that the issue should not bo sidetracked, and that the supporters of tins Bill should attempt instead to meet his arguments He knew that gambling would, .never bo entirely absent from the life of the country, but it was one of the greatest of evils; five hundred years ago Chaucer, the first of the English poets, had put that fact, plainly. Th« fact that gambling entered into the commercial .life of the country was no argument; if gambling was not an evil, why did the Legislature attempt to. stamp out bookmakers, punish the Chinaman far playing pak-a-poo, and prohibit church lotteries? Incidentally, Mr. Isitt quoted from an old speech of tho Prime Minister, in -which Mr. Massoy was reported; as saying that them werq fur too many^ face meetings, and .far too much gambling. Tho volume of racing then was a mere bagatelle as compared with/what Was -going on to-day. In the ! thirty years since* the totalis&tor was ' legalised there had passed through the machine £58,519,292, but of that amount the last eight years accounted for £35,----056,649. That was not the worst, for."last .year there had. gona through the total' isator almost fi9,0(W,000, so that, wh.sn ! the bookmaker and all the investments ill Australia were takisn into consideration, the Dominion, with: its population of 1,250,000 people, was investing- in gambling between fifteen and twenty millions annually. No man could deny that thwA was excessive gambling, and it was deplorable that the House should have so little sense of its responsibility, that it should at this time endeavour to give further facilities for the vice. He would ask the introducer of the Bill thesh questions : (1) Did he not recognise that excessive gambling is an evil? (2) Could hs deny that the gambling was excessive, and was incl'kisiftg at an alarming rate in the Dominion? (3) Could ho deny that an increase, of 38 racing permits must mean a further increase in the volume' of gambling ? (4) Was it not, at this time, the duty of 'every patriotic man to tfti-ch thrift and caution to the people? •> THE RESPONSIBLE MINISTER. The Minister of Internal Affairs (the Hon. 6. J. Anderson), a* the Minister responsible for the issuing of permits, -went into the present position, saying that if fne member responsible for the Bill would add a clause to his Bill to limit the events to seven per race day, there would actually be lees racing under the Bill than at present, Having quoted the totalisator figures for the past two years, the Minister dealt with the distribution of permits from the point of view of population. If population was the basis of distribution for the permits at present in existence, the Auckland facing district should hs.ve 24i days more; Hawera 144 day* lens; i'aranaki 3 days more; Wanganui 8 days' 'ess; Wellington, including Marlbor Ijugh, 10 more; Greymouth, 9 less; Canterbury 2 less; Dunedin lj less. It ;semed to him that if the House increas-

id the days of racing there should be i redistribution, but he thought it would oe wiser to have^he redistribution first. 'Ilie fairest way would be not to limit the increase, but to leave it to the Department to inest,the neede of centres where population had increased. If an increase was decided upon, why should the number be limited to 38? There were another 29 applicants entitled to equal treatment. He was fond of racing himeelf, and it was not with any "wowser" feelings that he had approached this matter What he had suggested had been prompted by a desire to do what he believed to be in the interests of the sport in general, with due consideration also for other people's feelings. ! Mr B>. P. Hudson (Motueka) said he was at all times in favour of the suppression of gambling, but he could not see why the populous centres should have a preponderance of race days at fcho expense of thr outlying districts. Many people would not spend the money they dfd in attending meetings in the centreß if they could hold them in a quiet way in their own districts. He intended to support the Bill, not to increase the facilities for gambling but to minimise the difference between the town and country districts in the catering for sport. " THE GOVERNMENT DIVIDED." Mr. J. M'Combs (Lyttelttin) avowed that the country Was very much avefSD to the granting of further racing facilities. He said the Government could Hot disclaim responsibility for the Bill if it became .taw, because of the facilities provided for its passage. The Hon. C. J. Parr : "The Government is divided on the matter."^

Mr. M'Combs: "But the portion of the Government which has definite charge of the .Order Paper has given ax-tvaordimn-y facilities for tho consideration imd possible passage of the Bill." Mr. M'Combs went ,on to argue that

horse racing and gambling led to a reduction in the productivity of the Dominion.

Mr. W. I>. Lysuar (Gisborne) said he wa3 not a racing man, but he saw no reason to lay it "Sown that others must not attend races. He supported the Bill because of the chance it would giv» country districts to hold their meetings. Mr. A. S. Malcolm (Clutha) discredited •the statement that the racing clubs were intensely ( patriotic, contending that the money they gave to patriotic objects jyaa merely money collected from tlie totalisntor. He asked if the continual changing hands of the tan millions sterling invested annually on the totalisator did not dislocate finance to some extent. He saw no harm in having race meetings if they were.divested of totalisators and gambling. He drew a. sharp distinction between sport and .gambling. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) would not admit that racing was necessary to gambling. Gambling existed in all walks of life. He would support the Bill because he did not think that a community of iong faces was the most desirable thing in the community. A little brightness was necessary because of the drab conditions of the lives of so many people. The whole matter was very small indeed when compared with the larger affaire'of life.

Mr. R. W. Smith (Waimarino) supported' the Bill. Mir- J. R. Hamilton (Awarua) opposed the Bill, because in a period when every effort was required to increase the prosperity and productivity of the Dominion it would introduce further facilities for waste of time and money.

Mr. J. Edie (Bruce) thought it was ■wrong to abolish the bookmaker and then immediately attempt to increase the number of days of racing. Mr. S. G. Smith (Taranaki) supported the Bill as a means of getting justice for his distriot. AMENDMENTS COMMENCE. The debate wad continued by Messrs. F. N. Baitratn (Grey Lynn), W. D. Powdrel) (Patea), J. A. Nash (Palmerston North), J. Horn (Wakatipu), G. Mitchell (Wellington Southland A. T. Ngata (Eastern Maori). The latter moved as an amendment that the Bill bo read a tecond time this day six months. :

Mr. Isitt then had.an opportunity,to speak again. He suggested that the Prime Minister should effect a compromise by postponing the Bill and appointing a Committee to take the evidence of the community on the matter. Mr. M'Combs and Mr J. R. Hamilton followed on, similar lines, and both had to b» warned that they were going perilously near "tedious repetition." Mr. C. E. Statham (Dunedin Central) supported the amendment, and was followed by Dr. A. K. Newman (Wellington East), who found a number of new reasons why the Bill should be poßtported. Mr. Kellett, Mr. A. Hamilton, and Mr. D. Jones carried on the debate. The latter was compelled to resume his seat through constant repetition, and then the division on the amendment was taken. It was lost 36 to 14, the division list being :-r Against the amendment (36) : Bar j tram, Bollard, Coates, Dickson, J. S. Field, Glenn, Guthrie, Hanan, Harris, Hawken, Henare, Hockly, Holland, Horn, Hudson, Hunter, Lysnar, M'Calhim, M'Leod, M'Nicol, Nash, Nosworthy, Parry, Pomare, Potter, Powdrell, Rhodes. R. H., Rhodes, T, W., Savage. Seddon, Smith, R. W., Smith, S. G., Sykes, Veitch, Wilford, Witty. For the amendment (14) : Dickson, J. Me, Edie, Hamilton A., Hamilton, J. R., Isitt, Jones, Kellett. M'Combs, Malcolm, Masters, Mitchell, Newman, A. X., Ngata, Stathanl. Pairs for the amendment : JMander, Campbell, Young, Herries, Mafisey, Reed, Thacker, Uru; Brown, Atmore, Howard. Against the amendment: Lee, Anderson, Parr, Luke, Wright, Sullivan, Craigie, Fraser, Burnett, BikheuCr, Stewart. T.WO MORE DIVISIONS. Mr, J. Mj Dickson (Chalmers) resumed the debate on the main question, for half an hour speaking strongly against fcfce Bill. Mr.H. B. Holland (Buller) announced his intention of supporting the Bill, mentioning incidentally that ha looked for the day when members would attack the big problems of the country with as 'much vigour as they were displaying oil this minor matter. If ever the Houee got into Committee on the Bill, he in.' tended to move, to add a new clause to take a referendum of the people on the question of "whether the- people wanted the totalisator or riot; personally, he thought there would be aft overwhelming majority in favour of the toiaJisator. The Hon. J. A. Hanan (Invercargill) spoke at some length, and then moved that tha Bill be referred to a special Committe, consisting of the Hon. G. J. Anderson, Hon. E. P. Lee, and Messrs. Hunter, atathani, Isitt. Witty, Glenn, Savage-, Field, Jouw. and Kellett. Mr. Speaker ruled this amendment out of order, saying that a motion to refer a Bill to A Committee must be moved immediately after the second reading or when the question for committal came ° Mr. r:' A. Wright (Wellington South), continuing the debate, said ■ the action of the House was open to the interpretation that it was an attempt to drive-out one act of gamblers to benefit anothaiclass; the bookmakers had been pushed aside to make room for the more general use of the totalisator. As his time drew to an end, he moved the adjournment of tho debate, but this lapsed fot- want of a seconder, none of the opponents to the Bill in the House at the moment having the right to speak. The division on, the second reading was then taken (4.50 a,m.),* and was carried by 35 to 13, the abEentee from the opposition being Dr. Newman. Mr. Hanan then moved his motion to refer the Bill to a Committee. Mr. Isitt spoki in favour of the amendment. Mr. Hunter asked members, as the proposal had come so late, to stand to the Bill. Messrs. M'Combs, J. R. Hamilton, Jones, Wright, and the Hon. A. T. Ng&ta, supported the amendment. On a. division the amendment was lost by 31 to 14, IN COMMITTEE. The House then went into Committee, whereupon Mr. Isitt immediately moved to report progress and to ask for leave to sit again, saying it was wrong for the Government to force the matter on at the point of the bayonet. The Minister of Lands, who was then in charge bf the House, said there had j been no promise as far as he knewi except for one Monday night, that contentious matters would not be brought forward on Monday nights. TheJ3ovefnment was not forcing the matter through; it was not influencing members in any direction. What was happening was simply the result of the majority of the House expreßSirig its will. Mr. Hunter said to adjourn would practically kill the Bill. Ml 1. J. R. Hamilton spoke in favour of the amendment to report progress, and was joined by Messrs. Mitchell and .Jones. The Chairman of Committees then announced that the following reasons for veporting progress' had been given : — That it was desirable to adjourn on account of the Prime 1 Minister's statement in regard to business for Mondays; that members were tired and, required refreshment; that the country'might exore;s. its opinion ; that there was no ha.»m in delay; and that there were other

questions on the Order Paper requiring attention. Membsrs therefore must not refer again to those matters.

Mr. Isitt spoke again, and in reply the Minister of Lands said the Government was taking no active part in the question of the adjournment. The House was in the charge of the member for Waipawa. The. Government itself was divided on the Bill, as had been evidenced by the divisions.

Mr. M'Combs spoke, and then the Chairman announced three other topics had been exhausted, but Messrs. Isitt and A. Hamilton managed to find tomething to say. The latter said that if the Government was going to push business through in this manner it would have to let him follow his own line in the future. ADJOURNMENT FOR BREAKFAST. The Minister of Agriculture said the long sitting was entirely the fault of the opponents of the Bill who were not content to express their opposition and be done with it.

Messrs. Tsitt, J. B. Hamilton, Jones, and M'Combs continued with. further arguments. Mr. R. W. Smith protested against a small section holding up the Bill by intimidation.

" The amendment to report progress was defeated on the voices at 6.52 a.m.

Clause 1 gave members the chance to traverse the Bill generally, and Messrs. J. E. Hamilton, Isitt, and M'Combs took up the running again, drawing a brief protest from Mr. R: M'Callum. Mb. M'Combs introduced Maeterlinck on gambling. The House adjourned for breakfast at 7.30 a.m., for an hour and a-half.