THE GAMING LAW

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22066, 23 September 1933, Page 10

THE GAMING LAW

The chances that a private member may secure the enactment of legislation introduced by him are usually somewhat slender. The days allotted in the House of Representatives for the discussion of private members’ Bills are not numerous in the circumstances that are most favourable to the consideration of these measures, and they are liable to serious encroachment through the prolongation of debates that were begun on days reserved for Government business. Moreover, the opportunities that are offered for the obstruction of legislation brought forward by private members are frequently utilised to the full by opponents of particular measures. Generally, it is only through the indulgence of the Government that any of these Bills, even though it may be supported by a majority of the members, has a reasonable prospect of being passed. The belief that has been expressed that the Bill which provides for the legalisation of betting by telegraph, the publication of dividends, and the use of a doubles totalisator will this year reach the Statute Book may, therefore, prove to be ill-founded. The measure has this session been entrusted to Mr Healy, the member for Wairau, the choice of whom as its sponsor may perhaps be attributed; to his political unobnoxiousness rather than to his political influence. As to the desirability of legalising a doubles totalisator there is likely to be a difference of opinion even among racing men, and it is doubtful whether there is any real public need for a restoration of this form of betting on the racecourse. But the wisdom of permitting the transmission of money by telegraph for investment on the totalisator should be apparent to every person who realises both the extent of the interest that is taken in racing events and tie severity of the blow that would be administered to bookmakers through the legalisation of this proposal. Tjhe existing provision of law, prohibiting the publication of dividends in newspapers, presents such an example ;of legislative stupidity that it is surprising that any intelligent persons should defend it.