The Star. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1920. TOTALISATOR PERMITS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 20076, 12 October 1920, Page 6

The Star. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1920. TOTALISATOR PERMITS.

Mr Massey could hardly refuse to give Mr George Hunter the opportunity to move the second reading of tho Gambling Act Amendment Bill, which proposes to increase tho number of racing days by thirty-eight. The subject has been keenly debated both in Parliament and out of it, and it is Hot the business of tho Prime Minister to deliberately frustrate the will of the House. Mr Massey has certainly redeemed his promise' to give the Bill “a reasonable run,” seeing that the House «at all night to force through tho second reading, while tho committee stage was pushed on long after daylight had appeared. Tho gambling question shares with thei licensing question the distinction of being a. nonparty subject, and the discussion sbowei that Mr Hunter’s Bill had friends and foes in every political camp. Peculiarly enough, the most logical and convincing opponent of the measure was tho Minister of Internal Affairs, whose t-asi< it is to supervise the distribution of permits. Mr Anderson was plainly perturbed at the possibility of his responsibilities in that connection being added to, and ho quoted some figures which were powerful arguments against the increase being authorised. Dealing with the financial growth of racing in 1918 and 1919 he submitted the following;— 1918. 1919. , £ £ Amount of stakes , t 381,070 502,000 rn f ™ stttk . es • . 3,830 5,022 rotahsator investments 5,732,000 8,797,000 Clubs’ 7J per centals , 429,000 659’,C00 Govt 1J per cent tax . 129,000 197,000 Fractions retained by clubs 27,457 42,063 There is every probability that tho figures fur 1920 will exceed those for 1919. It must be confessed that the advocates of the measure put forward an exceedingly weak case. Mr Hunter contended that tho 1 increases w ; erc justified by tho growth of population, and weio the only alternative to redistribution. The Racing Conference, he confessed, did not want to resort to redistribution, but if the Bill did not ■pass the Conference would have to face that responsibility in order ib give justice to country districts. Mr Hunter’s wariness is not difficult to understand. He realises that a tigress robbed of its cubs is a peaceful animal compared with a riming club deprived of a permit, and he does not want tho Conference to become the object of a storm of indignation which might shake it to its foundations. It is notorious, however, that the present distribution of permits is inequitable, and there is neither reason nor argument in an attempt to rectify a wrong by permitting tho Conference to shirk an obvious if somewhat unpleasant duty. Public sentiment is against the increase in the number of racing days in tho meantime, and the Racing Conference should bo told to brace itself to the heroic measure of redistribution Iho 1 1 ime Minister, however, prefers to make a compromise. After the House had 1 debated all night, and the stonewall had been vigorously conducted, ho airived with the offer of a Commission, which should have power to recoinmend both redistribution and increases. He could not afford to have the House wasting any more valuable time. The friends of the Bill, however, have practically carried- their point. No ordinary Commission can ignore the wishes of a parliamentary majority, and the public will be invited to reconcile itself to an increase in racing days.