A GAMING BILL

Southland Times, Issue 20205, 16 June 1927, Page 3

A GAMING BILL

EXPECTED THIS SESSION. DIVIDENDS AND “DOUBLE TOTE.” Gaming matters which come before Parliament are always productive of controversy, both inside and outside the Legislature. When the Bill introduced by the Government in 1924 to provide, amongst other things, for an increase in the number of totalisator permits came before the House there was a prolonged debate, involving a couple of all-night sittings, but when the attempt at a “stonewall” broke down the measure was soon speeded on its way to the Statute Book. It will be recalled that on that occasion resistance to the Bill was aided by some of the Reform members, including one who is now in the Mniistry (Mr Wright). Although introduced by the Government the Bill was of a nonparty nature, being left to the free vote of the House. Last session the Hon. Sir Edwin Mitchelson, M.L.C., framed a Gaming Amendment Bill, and in his unavoidable absence the second reading in the Legislative Council was moved by the Hon. Vernon H. Reed. This Bill, which was passed by the Council, but merely introduced and read a first time without discussion in the Lower House, sought to make it lawful to telegraph totalisator investments to secretaries of racing clubs on the racecourse; to publish before a race information with regard to it, and after the race the dividend paid in respect to the totalisator; and to re-establish the “double” totalisator. The Bill also made it an offence for an undesirable who had been removed from a course to re-enter that course; made it compulsory for clubs to race upon their own courses except in special circumstances; and repealed a section in the 1924 Act which permitted racing clubs to become trotting clubs, and vice versa. In racing and political circles it is anticipated that a Bill similar to Sir Edwin Mitchelson’s Bill, at any rate in regard to the publication of dividends, the “double tote,” and the telegraphing of bets to the course, will come before the Lower House during the coming session. Although it may not be sponsored by the Government it is thought that the private member introducing it will be afforded facilities for allowing the House to express free views as to its merits.