“GAMBLING NOW PART OF MORAL STANDARD”

Wanganui Chronicle, 18 October 1950, Page 5

“GAMBLING NOW PART OF MORAL STANDARD”

“Churches No Longer Lead,” Says Dr. Mazengarb PARLIAMENT BLDGS. Last Night (PA). —In the attitude toward gambling the morals ot the people had changed and the people were now in a moral slump, said the Hon. Dr. O. C. Mazengarb (Wellington) in the Legislative Council this afternoon, speaking to the second reading debate on the Gaming Amendment. Bill. In the past the churches used to lead the community in upholding moral standards, but now they seemed to be unable to do anything to stem the rising tide of gambling, he said. Gambling had come to be accepted as part of the moral standard of the community.

“Is it a true and valid argument for the Bill that the people in the referendum voted in favour of off-course betting?” asked Dr. Mazengarb. “Is it a mere matter ef the counting of heads when moral issues are at stake?” He wanted to know where the vote had come from for 20 extra race meetings a year on top of the 339 already. The Hon. N. A. Rattray (Waimate) said that off-course bets under the scheme so far propounded would be accepted up to 11 hours before a race, while the bookmakers would accept bets up to starting time. Bookmaking would be stopped only by immediate enforcement of the law. Although an owner, Mr. Rattray said he disagreed with the 20 extra meetings being held. Exception was taken by the Hon. W. Grounds (North Auckland) to the “befouling of the air” with information about doubles and dividends. He considered the legislation the “shadiest phase of the last Government’s legislation.” The Hon. F. G. Young (Wellington) claimed that some of the finest men in the country were bookmakers. It was not the bookmaker’s fault that he was not licensed. He criticised the bookmakers’ limits. REMARKS ILL-FOUNDED When the debate on the Bill was continued tonight, the Hon. C. G. White (Wellington) said that Dr. Mazengarb's accusations of “nauseating hypocrisy” on the part of some members of the Council were ill-founded and “a prostitution of his talents.” The remarks were also objectionable in form as in tone, because Dr. Mazengarb had thought that the National Party would not be a party to such actions as the Bill proposed. Mr White said that both political parties were “in this right up to the neck” as a result of the more than two-to-one referendum vote in favour of its principles. Nevertheless, Mr White registered his objection to the Bill from the point of view of morality Insofar as it facilitated betting, although it did not extend such facilities beyond what existed. The Hon. J. Roberts (Wellington) said that he had heard a lot of talk about conscience during the debate. He commented: “I have often fount, that conscience has been the immediate or ultimate shadow of the person’s material interests.” He contended that there was no sport in horse betting. If a man wagered a pound on a horse he was concerned only to have it win or be placed, and was not concerned whether it broke its neck. Bookmakers were in business for the same reason, as the bettor laid bets to get something for nothing. “GAMBLING MONOPOLY” Mr Roberts attacked the “gambling monopoly" held by the racing interests. "What is the use of those spindle-shanked horses, anyhow except for racing and betting upon?" he asked. “Could they be put to a plough for instance? If a man like 1 am tried to ride one it would break its back.” (Laughter.) Other members complained that the Bill did nothing to deal with bookmakers, who were described as "a criminal class, euphemised by that designation.” The wastage of labour involved in setting up off-course netting was also deplored. The Hon. T. Bloodworth (Auckland) considered that both political parties had sheltered behind the people’s vote on an issue where they should have led the country.