SYDNEY UPROAR

Hokitika Guardian, 20 September 1938, Page 2

SYDNEY UPROAR

IN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. OVER STARTING PRICE BILL. SYDNEY, September 6. The S.P. Bill, in a much altered form, was carried through all stages in the Legislative Assembly yesterday. A sitting enlivened by scenes of uproar and wild disorder produced the following highlights:— “Onus of proof” clause thrown quietly overboard. New clause inserted giving S.P. agents the right to recover by law from (their principals fines imposed upon such agents for breaches of the Act. PUBLICATION OF ODDS. Deletion of clause exempting newspapers from the prohibition of publication ’of betting odds until after the last race. This will stop an evening paper from publishing the betting odds after each race, and thus place it on the same footing as the radio stations.’ A clash between the Premier (Mr Stevens) and two members ol his party. Mr J. C. Ross (Kogarah) and Mr Waddell (Waverley). Both members denianded an apology for what they declared was an ini pi it ration that they were in concert uitli “outside interests” opposed to trie bill.

‘‘OUTSIDE INTERESTS. ’ ’ An attack by the Opposition Leafl-r (Mr Lang) on the directorate of the Sun newspaper, which, be alleged, was the “outside interest” behind the bill. The deletion of the “onus of proof” clause was moved by Mr Lang, accepted by the Chief Secretary (Mr Gollan), and carried on thc ( voices without debate. Mr Lang said the bill would achieve little more than existing legislation. “If you want to ston S.P. betting, the way to do it is by stopping all newspapers publishing prices,” be said. The Premier (Mr Stevens) said that he had interviewed the police authorities and had asked the inspector in charge: “Will the hill help the police aulliorities to curtail or eliminate this evil, particularly as regards the youth of the community?” “The inspector replied, ‘lf the bill goes through I maintain that 75 per cent, of this evil can be dealt with,’ ” added Mr Stevens. When Mr Lnzzarini (Heffron Labour, Marrickville) suggested p-ohibit--1 ing any newspapers from publishing betting odds, Mr Stevens replied: — j. “Very well. Move it, and I will ! support it.

ANGRY SCENES. “T believe there are members of the Oppocsition who would like to move ! amendments that will f.mprcve the j bill.” \ Mr J. C. Ross: There are some on ; the Government side, too. I “Opposition from this side of the ; House, limited, I am glad to say, to . three members, has been in harmony with the S.P. bookmakers, who rrC lawbreakers on the community,” rc- , torted Mr Stevens. Mr Ross (jumping to his feet): That I is a reflection on members who voted against the bill. Does the Premier infer that we are acting in concert with lawbreakers? I ask that he with- . draw that statement and apologise. I The Chairman of Committees (Mr Hedges): I did not understand the Premier to infer that. (Uproar).

Mr Waddell then rose, and said that he took a point of order.

“I am one of the three members referred to,” he said. ‘‘l demand that the Premier withdraw and apologise.”

RENEWED UPROAR, Mr Hedges’ reply that Mr Waddell llad no right to demand anything brought forth renewed uproar. ‘‘Do I understand that the Premier is not going to apologise?” asked Mr Ross, again jumping to his feet. Mr Ross was ordered to resume his seat, and Mr Waddell, who rose and said to the chairman, ‘‘l dissent from vour ruling,” was also ordered to sit down. Mr Stevens said that he had never set out to damage any member’s reputation. but he was not going to allow his objective to be foiled. ‘‘l did express regret that the resolution moved last night was in harmony with the propaganda in a pamphlet read in this House by my colleague, Mr Martin,’ he said.

“That propaganda was financed by a league composed of S.P. bookmakers.“ Mr Ross: “Do you associate us with them ?

ADVOCACY. Mr Stevens: It often happens that members ally themselves, and express their allegiance to the type of advocacy engaged in by those interests that are hurt by legislation. Mr Ross: Are you going to apologise ? Mr Stevens: What for ? Mr Ross: For what you said a few minutes ago. Are you going to do the decent thing? Mr Stevens: I offer no apology for •what I said. After Mr Hedges had again ordered Mr Ross to resume his seat, Mr Ross move? d that the Premier no longer be heard. This was defeated on the voices. ONUS OF PROOF. Referring to the “onus of proof” clause, Mr Stevens said: “1 admit that if the clause were divorced from the bill, and regarded as a

policy affecting citizens of a British community, it would be open to serious

objection. “If the House thinks that the averment clause infringes one of the traditional rights of the British subject, I am prepared to allow the bill to be passed without it.” An amendment to the clause which defines a “street,” moved by Mr Tonking (U.A.P., Orange), was accepted.

By this, the definition “street” does not extend to include a licensed racecourse during the period in which a race meeting is being held on such racecourse.

This will prevent bets on races elsewhere being taken on a racecourse where no races are being held. An amendment that this prohibition should not apply to racecourses situated beyond 40 miles from the G.P.0., Sydney, moved by Mr ' Bennett (U.A.P., Gloucester) was ruled out of order.

The clause giving the right to agents, clerks or servants of an S.P. bookmaker to recover by law from their principals the amount of any penalty imposed upon the agents for breaches of the act was moved by Mr Primrose (U.A.P., North Sydney).

The amendment was carried by 38 votes to 35. eight Government members, and the independent, Mr Lethbridge (Corowa), voting with the Opposition against it.

An amendment moved by Kilpatrick that official starting prices should be* the price declared bv a Treasury official and a race club official after the last race, was ruled out of order.

PRESS AND \RADIO. Deletion of the clause exempting newspapers from the clause prohibiting the publication of betting odds until after the starting time of the last race, was moved by Mr Chaffey. He said that it, would he inequitable to debar broadcasting stations from giving the odds after ea<*li race and to allow a newspaper to publish the odds after each, race. Mr Bruxner, who opposed the amendment, said that broadcasting had been the greatest factor in\building up the worst side of off-the-eonr«e betting. “Nobody will say that publication of the results and betting in newspapers has been conductive to off-the-course betting,” he added. Mr Lang said h« had heard with considerable astonishment talk of “interested parties.”

' “Now,” he /said, “we get who the interested parties are—not from Die Premier, hut from the Deputy Premier.”

PROFITS. “Sir Hugh Denison owns the Sun, and on his directorate are men like Sir Frederick Tout, of the Country Party, and Sir Sydney Snow, of the United Australia Party. , “Sir Hugh Denison’s company also owns two of the broadcasting stations. “What does it matter to them if. the profits of 2UE and ‘2GB are lessened if the profits of the Sun and Sydney Sun and trebled?” The amendment was carried on the voices, Mr Gollan having intimated that he would -accept it. A clause was inserted which enab’es bona fide newspapers to publish weights and acceptances without authority from the race club concerned. The committee stages and third reading were carried on the voices.