A FURTHER HEARING

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 118, 15 November 1934, Page 10

A FURTHER HEARING

GAMING AMENDMENT BILL

POSSIBLE NEXT FEBRUARY

Although, the Gaming Act Amendment Bill has so far failed to find a passage through the Hous© of Representatives during the present adjourned session, of Parliament, it i 3 still on. the Order-Paper, and it is believed> in informed circles that the debate on the second reading will be continued when the House resumes next February...The Bill therefore has a reason-j able- chance yet of being read a second tune, and then of receiving consideration in the Committee stage. Should the Bill become law it. is possible, that another Gaming Act Amendment Bill will 'be introduced immediately afterwards aiming at 'the relicensing of bookmakers. : • The Amendment Bill that was before j the House last month provides for the establishment of the doubles totalisator ] and for the publication of dividends. It I was first introduced into the Legislative I Council' as a private member's Bill early in the. session, and 'after being passed by that Chamber it was sent down to the elective Chamber. The Lower House considered the measure on October 11, but the debate on the second reading was interrupted by the midnight adjournment be-fore-tie division stage was reached. The tactical defeat of the Bill on that date was. briefly commented on by the member in charge, Mr., A. J. Murdoch (Government, Marsden) after tlio House had. risen. "Had the second reading been taken to the vote it would, have beenr carried, because we had an assured majority of about fourteen," he said. "The minority opponents to the measure, however, employed the forms of the House to seal the fate of the Sill-for the present, apd they succeeded." ' From available information, however, it is possible that 'the defeatist tactics have not yet succeeded, for with another day devoted to it the second reading will probably be taken to a division and, if successful, the Bill will then be able to go to the Committee stage, where the clauses will be separately considered. Members who have already spoken to the second reading are the mover (Mr. Murdoch), and Messrs. W. E. Parry (Labour, " Auckland), F. Langstone i (Labour, Waimarino), Mrs. E. R. McCombs, ("Labour, Lyttelton), Messrs. A. J. Stall- | worthy (Independent, Eden). W. J. Jor-1 clan (Labour, Manukau), W. J, Broadfoot (Government, Waitorao).. P. C. Webb (Labour, Buller), R. A. Wright (Indcpend-. ent, Wellington Subnrbs), H. Holland (Government, Christchurch North), H. G. K. Mason (Labour. Auckland Suburbs),' K. Semple (Labour, Wellington East), H. S. fcT Kyle (Government, Ricrarton), Rev. C. Carr (Labour, Timarn), R. W. Hawke (Government, Kaiapot), and A. S. Richards (Labour, Roskill). Sir. Richards was still speaking when the House adjourned .tt midnight, and for that day the Bill had been "talked out." In movingl the second reading the U\H a sponsor in the Lower House (Mr. Murdoch) had described the measure as a very simple one and in the best interests ot the Dominion. An important aspect, he said, was that the revenue of the State would be assisted. Tinder the existing conditions owners of horses in New Zealand had been compelled to send their horses tc- Australia in order to enjoy the benefit of large states. He believed that »ew Zealand was the only country in the world that did not permit dividends to be piib^ lished. He did not see hoW any valid objection could be be taken to the Bill.