GAMING BILL TALKED OUT

Taranaki Daily News, 27 September 1930, Page 9

GAMING BILL TALKED OUT

AN INTERRUPTED DEBATE NO DECISION AT ADJOURNMENT. THE PARLIAMENTARY METHOD. ' It seems that the Gaming Act Amendment Bill, introduced in the House of Representatives on Thursday by Mr. K. S. Williams, was “talked out.” The debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 10.30 p.m., and the ordinary procedure is to drop a private megiber-s measure after such an occurrence. The Govemnent having fulfilled its promise to give thp House an. opportunity of dismissing the Bill, and the House having spent an evening on it without result, it could only be placed on the order paper again through the indulgence of the Government. In addition to the speakers on the Bill, who were reported in yesterday’s issue of the Daily News, six other members contributed to the debate. The Press Association summarised their remarks as follows: — Mr. T. Makitanara (Southern Maori) said that it was only hypocrisy to endeavour to stop gambling, and he would move an amendment later with the object of legalising the bookmaker. The idea of the previous legislation had been to eradicate bookmakers, but now they were stronger than ever. The Act had created a sentiment towards the bookmaker and there was no reason why a license should not be collected from him, especially as the country was in need of revenue. Mr.' F. Langgtone (Waimarino, Labour) said he regretted that the Bill had been brought forward when there were so many more important subjects to be considered. No sport had a more damaging effect on human beings than racing and the present Bill would simply turn the r ost offices into totalisator shops. He believed it would also encourage the bookmakers. Mr. J. O’Brien (Westland, Labour) said he thought some amendment to gaming legislation was necessary. He could not see any reason, for instance, why euchre halls should not be licensed so long as they were not conducted for the financial benefit of those controlling them. He believed it would be better to publish dividends and-telegraph bets than to allow the business to continue in an underground manner.

Mr. R. Semple (Wellington East, Labour) opposed the Bill an<L declared there were more urgent problems requiring the attention of the House at the present time.

Mr. H. E. Holland (Buller, Leader ■of the Labour Party) said he hoped the Bill would go past the second reading. . There was a number of amendments -ecessary in gaming legislation. For instance, he objected to the power of the Racing Conference in being able to insist on apprentices contracting themselves beyond the scope of the Arbitration Court. Mr. Holland said he had heard some remarkable views on thte subject of publication of dividends. If it was wrong to publish dividends in a newspaper it was wrong to publish them on a racecourse. The position at present was that thousands of people saw the dividends on the racecourse. The figures were cabled to Aus' tralia and Subsequently entered New Zealand in Australian newspapers. Mr. Holland also supported the proposal to telegraph bets to the totalisator. Mr. H. Holland (Christchurch .North, Reform) strongly opposed the Bill on the ground that it would increase gambling. The debate was interrupted by the rising of the House at 10.30 p.m.