"BORN GAMBLERS"

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 88, 15 April 1939, Page 8

"BORN GAMBLERS"

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —The sweeping condemnation of Australians as gamblers as contained in the interview with the Rev. Mr. Pate, of Palmerston North, and which you have given prominent publicity, is both wrong and uncalled for. There is no distinction between New Zealand and Australian-born people; we have practically the same parents—we are the same.

I would refer Mr. Pate to the totalisator figures for the Christmas, Anniversary, and Easter Race Meetings—the increase was approximately £100,000, and also to the amounts transmitted from New Zealand to the Australian consultations. He heard someone sent £300 to the lottery. Did he hear of the £100,000 that has come to New Zealand in prize-money from Australia, and the monthly lotteries that are always filled up in New Zealand?—l am, etc., MELBOURNITE. (To the Editor.) Sir, —In your issue of this afternoon, under the above heading, the Rev. J. S. Pate, after a year spent in the Commonwealth, has seen fit to cast reflections on Australians to which I take exception. He states that the Australian is a born gambler, and for the sake of argument I admit that he is, but not more so than his fellow in any other country, New Zealand not excepted. I contend that life is a gamble, and when our friend sought his vocation or had it provided for him it was, might I be forgiven for stating, in the way of a gamble. Anyhow, what right has Mr. Pate to claim the character of the Australian people has been undermined, and who constituted him a judge as to how people should spend their few pence in a democratic country? His quotation of the chap who spent £300 on the chance of a win and missed counts for nothing, as it was that individual's idea of entertainment. Furthermore, I am prepared to state that if he was a "dinkum Aussie" or a New Zealander in the Commonwealth he was not growling, for he had his chance. Comparisons are odious, but I would remind our reverend friend that if we take the population of New Zealand, compared with that of the Commonwealth, the odds are on little New Zealand as the best, and, might I state, the most consistent, gambler I have met up with. He does not cry when the going is against him. No, he just plods on and has a flutter when' possible, in the hope of getting out of the rut. He cannot go on the Stock1 Exchange, as his funds are, far too low, but he hands over his 5s 3d, for which mum and he could certainly get something in the way of food and clothing, but which they prefer to have a gamble with, and should they gain a prize worth while get away for a time from the workaday world to which they belong.

Allow me to remind our reverend friend that every individual lives his own life, and I question his right to tell the world just how it should live. In his reference to the lottery, he states "that the hospitals receive £775.000 out of each £1,000,000 that is subscribed. The rest goes in prizes and expenses." Would he suggest an ! alternative whereby this amount could be raised under conditions obtaining today? I am one of those who at all times respects the cloth, but when one refers scathingly to my countrymen I claim the right to defend them. —I am, otc *' M. LARACY. April 14.