Presbytery Opposes Off-Course Betting Proposals

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 22867, 10 February 1949, Page 2

Presbytery Opposes Off-Course Betting Proposals

(P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, Feb. 10. “Believing that the oroposed facilities for off-course betting if carried into effect would result in an overall increase in the volume of gambling within the country and believing also that the totalisator is handling an excessive amount of the citizens’ money, the presbytery affirms its opposition to the proposals and strongly urges church members to record their vote on March 9 against the granting of further gambling facilities.” This motion was passed by the Christchurch presbytery yesterday. The Rev. J. E. Stewart said the church was doubtful whether the gaming proposals would eliminate bookmakers. It was also doubtful whether the proposals would do away with credit betting. A worse evil of deeper concern, said> Mr. Stewart, was the public’s reaction to gaming. „ „ “When you find the interests of the people centred on racing it is a serious matter.

No Quarrel With Racing As A Sport “We have, no quarrel with horseracing as a sport, but rather with the excessive gambling associated with it.” The Government should introduce measures to restrain the volume of betting, continued Mr. Stewart. If increased legal facilities for off-course betting were provided the volume of betting would increase. Off-course facilities would create a demand for further excessive gambling.

It was suggested that there were only two alternatives before the people regarding the gaming issue. One was off-course legal betting and the other was the bookmaker. The church held the view that there was a third alternative —that the community should discourage excessive gambling. The State should withhold the use of the post office and broadcasting services for gambling and it should provide within the education system for onstruction on the social and moral consequences of gambling. The Rev. S. Francis said that it was an insidious form of propaganda that the people should be presented with only two alternatives—off-course betting and bookmakers. The public were led to believe that unless they voted for the gaming proposals they would be encouraging an evil. This was not so; the public could exert their influence to restrict gambling as much as possible.