Federation University ARC Linkage Report by getsmartdesign

ARC Linkage Grant Final Report

The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Purpose of this report The purpose of this report is to summarise the findings from an Australian Research Council funded research project (# LP0989647) The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences. The primary audiences for this report are governments, gambling researchers, community members, and others interested in understanding the complex effects of localised poker machine gambling within communities.

Acknowledgements The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences project was funded through an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage grant in partnership with the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) and 29 Victorian local councils. The research team gratefully acknowledges this financial assistance and also the considerable in-kind assistance provided by the partner councils and the VLGA (including its working group, the Local Government Working Group on Gambling, known as LGWGoG). The research team also extend their gratitude to the City of Whittlesea which hosted the research and provided significant support. Particular thanks go to those who shared their time and knowledge through their direct participation in the research, or by providing support, assistance and advice.

Research team Professor John McDonald Dr Angela Murphy

Dr Rob Watson

Dr Helen Aucote

Deborah Greenslade

Diana Bell

Nicole Wiseman

Further information Professor John McDonald, Executive Dean, Faculty of Education and Arts Federation University Australia +61 3 5327 9611 j.mcdonald@federation.edu.au

Design and layout: Get Smart Design

Proofreading: Tess McDonald

Published August 2014 ISBN 978-1-876851-82-8 ÂŠ Copyright 2014 Disclaimer: The information provided herein is based upon data from The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences project. The results and learnings are shared to inform local government, gambling researchers and others interested in understanding how poker machines can affect communities. They may not be applicable for every organisation or context. The authors shall not be liable for any loss incurred as a consequence of the use and application directly or indirectly, of any information presented in this work.

2 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Contents Contents 3 Tables and figures

Abbreviations 5 Executive summary

Introduction 8 A word about terminology

Project background and context

Annotated Bibliography.

The liberalisation and expansion of gambling

Factors shaping the focus of current gambling research

What do we know about poker machine gambling in Australia?

What do the research literature and the Annotated Bibliography reveal about the community effects of poker machine gambling?

The rationale for a community level of analysis

Defining the term community for the purpose of this study

Design and methodology of the research project

Research design

Project funding arrangements and collaborative partnerships

Ethics approval

Selection of the research community

Research sites

Methodologies and data collection

Methods 22 Descriptions of each of the research sites

Key research findings

Recommendations for policy and legislative reform

References 49

3 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Tables and figures Table 1:

Research sites, methologies and methods

Table 2:

Selected 2011 ABS Census data related to the research communities

Table 3:

Age structure by life stage in 2011 as percentage of total population

Table 4:

Description of activities or purposes that constituted allowable CBS claim

Categories within classes A, B and C for the years July 2008 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; June 2012

Table 5:

Club CBS Claims as a component of poker machine revenue/losses

Table 6:

Sense of community in relation to neighbourhood: mean scores for men and women

Table 7:

Attitudes toward gambling: mean scores for gamblers and non-gamblers

Table 8:

Anticipated change poker machines will have, living in the area

Figure 1:

SEIFA Indices of Socio-economic Disadvantage and the location of gambling venues and

gambling losses incurred in each venue

Figure 2:

Impacts of harmful gambling

Figure 3:

Levels of gambling impact

Figure 4:

Visual depiction of community engagement with the club

Figure 5:

How gambling harm affects ordinary community members

Figure 6:

Respondents who visited poker machine venues in the previous six months

Figure 7:

Anticipated effect of poker machines on living in the area

Figure 8:

Anticipated change poker machines will have on living in the area

4 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Abbreviations

ABS

Australian Bureau of Statistics

CPGI

Canadian Problem Gambling Index

EGM

Electronic Gaming Machine

LGWGoG

Local Government Working Group on Gambling

Australian Productivity Commission

VCGLR

Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation

VLGA

Victorian Local Governance Association

5 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Executive summary The long-term economic and social impact of poker machines is of great importance to Australia. Gambling is a major industry in Australia generating profits in excess of $19 billion annually (Productivity Commission (PC), 2010, p. 2.5). Poker machines account for more than half the total revenue collected from all gambling. There are between 310,000 to 510,000 adults in Australia who are experiencing significant problems with their gambling (PC, 2010, p. 5.1), and on average, the lives of 7.3 “significant others” are adversely affected by every person experiencing gambling related problems (PC, 1999, p. 7.34). Assessments that poker machines account for 75 – 80 per cent of problem gamblers, and “pose considerable problems for consumers in general” (PC, 2010, p. 13) provided the rationale for this project’s focus on poker machine gambling. To date, gambling research has focused on individual gamblers and the pathology of problem gambling. Relatively few studies have explored the community level effects of poker machine gambling. However, poker machines and their effects are deeply enmeshed in communities. Machines in Victoria and other jurisdictions are deployed into community spaces such as clubs and hotels; poker machine gambling is a localised activity, with most people travelling less than five kilometres to gamble; and this form of gambling has myriad local socio-economic effects. This project addresses the community level impacts of poker machines. Our studies, carried out within the communities where the poker machine gambling is taking place, respond to McGowan’s call (2004) to situate gambling research in the historical, political and everyday contexts in which the gambling occurs. Findings from this project have advanced our knowledge of the multiple, interconnected, direct and indirect, and often hidden ways that poker machines are affecting the health and wellbeing of communities. These impacts – social, cultural, political and moral – challenge the dominant conceptions of gambling as an individual pathology affecting only the minority of problem gamblers. Our conclusions strengthen the call for gambling to be recognised as a public issue rather than exclusively a personal trouble. C.W. Mills (1959) argued that it is only when we understand personal troubles to be the result of certain institutional arrangements in society that those in power are forced to address it. If we continue to see the central focus of gambling research as ‘problem gambling’, and see problem gambling as a “personal trouble”, then we continue to locate both the problem and its treatment within a small number of pathological individuals. On the other hand, if gambling comes to be seen as “a public matter: some value cherished by publics is felt to be threatened” (Mills, 1959, p. 15), then effective reform becomes possible. I am optimistic that the findings from this project will assist governments and regulatory authorities to balance the costs and benefits of gambling.

Professor John McDonald

6 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

7 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Introduction This report documents the process, findings and key outcomes of a research project which examined the community level effects of poker machines. This project comprised three separate studies undertaken across three sites, each representing divergent community types and gambling contexts. All studies were conducted within a single Victorian local government area. The objective of this project was:

To determine the health and wellbeing impacts of the installation of poker machines in local communities. The following section describes the background and context of this project including information on poker machine gambling in Australia, a discussion of current national and international gambling research, and the rationale for adopting a community level of analysis. The project methodology, funding arrangements and collaborative partnerships are then outlined, along with a description of each of the three research sites. Subsequent sections discuss the findings from the two completed studies and the preliminary findings from the third study still in progress. The final sections describe key project outcomes and make recommendations for future research and policy.

A word about terminology Within Australia and internationally, poker machines are known by a number of terms including electronic gaming machines, EGMs, gaming machines, pokies, fruit machines, slot machines or slots. Australians tend to describe the activity of gambling on these machines as ‘playing the pokies’, while the industry tends to describe it as gaming. There have been some criticisms of this terminology. Reith (2007) describes the term “gaming” as euphemistic, noting that, “with its connotations of play and leisure, [it] dissociates games of chance from their older, “harder” connotations of betting, wagering, and inevitably, financial loss”; and notes that this language is part of the normalisation of gambling (p. 36). Fallon (2008) makes a similar assessment, rejecting the use of terms such as electronic gaming machines, EGMs and gaming, on the basis that these descriptions draw attention to the leisure attribute of poker machines, but mask the gambling component (p. 19). Instead, Fallon (2008) elects to use the terms “poker machine” and “poker machine gambling”, arguing they more accurately reflect the true nature of the activity (p. 1). Our research project team made a similar assessment and have elected to use the terms ‘poker machine’ and ‘gambling’ or ‘poker machine gambling’ within this report. The team have also, where possible, elected to utilise the terms ‘harmful gambling’ and ‘individuals experiencing gambling harm’ within this report, rather than the alternative terms – ‘problem gambling’ and ‘problem gambler’. This decision was based on the belief that the terms ‘problem gambling’ and ‘problem gambler’ overemphasise the agency of individuals in the creation and maintenance of gambling harm and downplay the role and regulation of the gambling product (i.e. poker machines).

8 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Project background and context Annotated Bibliography Much of the discussion in this section was informed by a review of the research literature related to the community effects of gambling and the preparation of the Community impact of electronic gaming machines: An Annotated Bibliography, one of the first outputs of this project. The Annotated Bibliography comprised research reports, monographs and peer-reviewed articles and conference papers published in the English language from 1980 to 2010. As the focus of the Annotated Bibliography was on the impacts of poker machines at a community level, the search excluded literature concerned with gambling prevalence studies, predictors and correlates of gambling behaviour, and treatment and harm-reduction strategies. A summary of these findings is presented later in this section.

The liberalisation and expansion of gambling During the past four decades, governments in many countries have progressively relaxed legislative constraints on gambling (Chambers, 2011). In many cases, gambling activities that were previously restricted or small scale operation, such as lotteries, scratch cards, race betting, poker machines and casino table games, have become state-sanctioned and commercialised (Adams, 2008; Orford, 2011; Reith, 2007). Legalisation and marketing has assisted to transform perceptions of gambling from a morally questionable and aberrant or illegal activity to a legitimate recreational pastime (Adams, 2008; Collins, 2006; Goodman, 1995; Orford, 2011; Reith, 2007). In jurisdictions including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, these changes have resulted in an unprecedented growth in gambling products and access to gambling opportunities (Adams, 2008; Chambers, 2011). Consequently, consumption of gambling has exploded (Adams, 2008; Chambers, 2011) and global gambling expenditure is estimated at $450 billion each year (Global Betting and Gaming Consultants, 2013). With $19 billion expended on gambling products in Australia in 2008-09 (PC, 2010, p. 2.5), gambling represents a significant component of the Australian economy. The worldwide growth in spending on gambling over the past two decades can be largely explained by the proliferation of poker machines. There are now over 7.4 million machines operating worldwide (Gaming Technologies Association, 2013). Within Australia there are 198,300 poker machines, each yielding average annual revenues of AU$59,700 (PC, 2010). Expenditure on poker machine gambling accounted for around $11.9 billion of the $19 billion Australians spent on gambling in 2008-09 (PC, 2010, p. 2.5).

Governments have become increasingly dependent on gambling taxes. For example, states and territories across Australia now derive up to 13% of all their revenue from gambling, and more than half of this is from poker machine taxes (PC, 2010). This highlights the multiple and conflicting responsibilities facing governments, including regulating poker machine gambling, approving new venues and the expansion of gambling in existing venues, deriving significant taxation revenue from gambling, and ameliorating the negative effects of gambling through the provision of counselling and education services. Similar patterns are evident in other countries. In Canada, for example, provinces have exclusive control over gambling, and play a range of potentially conflicting roles such as owning and operating gambling products, receiving revenue from gambling, regulating the industry, and providing services to problem gamblers.

Factors shaping the focus of current gambling research Following the 1980 classification of harmful gambling as a medical illness, international and Australian research has focused on the prevalence and pathology of ‘problem gambling’, and to a lesser extent, upon the economic and social effects of gambling (McDonald and Greenslade, 2010, p. ii). Research has produced a corpus of knowledge about what is described as ‘problem gambling’, including definitions, prevalence, characteristics, risk factors and co-morbidities, the impact of problem gambling at an individual level, and the effectiveness of varying treatment approaches. However, the research is largely silent on the wider social construct within which gambling occurs (Fabiansson, 2009; Woolley, 2009). Despite recognition of the capacity of gambling and gambling harm to impact at the community level (Neal, Delfabbro and O’Neil, 2005, p. 125), there is a notable lack of research examining those very effects (Reith & ScotCen, 2006, p. 17; SACES, 2001, 2005a). One of the major factors shaping research knowledge has been the sponsorship by vested interests, particularly gambling corporations and governments, in funding research and directing research priorities. Sponsored research constructs pathological gambling as the central problem, thus diverting attention away from the harms inherent in the poker machine product (Borrell, 2008b; Campbell & Smith, 2003, p. 143; Livingstone and Woolley, 2007, p. 364; Young, 2013) and the growing dependence on gambling profits by governments, industry and community organisations (Adams, 2009). This narrow focus of research on individual pathology has left many other areas largely unexamined (Reith & ScotCen, 2006, p. 17).

9 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

What do we know about poker machine gambling in Australia? Poker machine gambling is predominantly community based According to the Australian Productivity Commission there are around 200,000 poker machines in Australia; of these, around 186,000 are located within hotels, sports and recreation clubs (2010, p. 2.24). This frequently places poker machines at the very heart of communities, where people shop, work and socialise. This deployment is significant because poker machine gambling is predominantly a localised behaviour and people who live within several kilometres of a gambling machine club are likely to gamble more frequently than those who live further away (Young, Markham & Doran, 2012). Thus, the effects of poker machine gambling are likely to be predominantly felt within the community in which they are located. This provides one of the strongest justifications for the community level of analysis within this project.

Poker machine gambling is concentrated in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage Not only are poker machines to be found dispersed in many local venues across Australia, they are concentrated in areas of socio-economic disadvantage (Doughney, 2002; Livingstone, 2001, 2005; SACES, 2005a, 2005b) and poker machine expenditure/losses are higher in areas with higher densities of poker machines (Doughney, 2002, pp. 13 – 29; Livingstone, 2001, pp. 50 – 51, 2005, pp. 524 – 525). This concentration of poker machines and losses in socio-economically disadvantaged communities is illustrated in the map developed by Hayden Brown from the City of Greater Dandenong, reproduced in Figure 1. This map depicts SEIFA Indices of Socio-economic Disadvantage (shown in shades of green) and the location of gambling venues (shown as blue dots), with the differences in the size of the dot indicating differences in losses.

Figure 1. SEIFA Indices of Socio-economic Disadvantage and the location of gambling venues and gambling losses incurred in each venue Examining the map, it is clear that the costs of poker machine gambling are not distributed equitably across communities. The Productivity Commission (1999) noted that in such areas of disadvantage, the social and economic effects of problem gambling may have “significant community-wide impacts” and “social and economic stresses may have compounding impacts” (p. 38–41). This is supported by Australian research which explored the effects of gambling problems on people with low incomes and identified high levels of relationship stress, family separation and breakdown, food shortages, general ill health, extreme debt and attempted suicide (Law, 2005).

There is a strong association between poker machines and harmful gambling While definitions and measures of gambling harm remain contested, it has been estimated that between 80,000 and 160,000 Australian adults suffer severe gambling problems, and a further 230,000 to 350,000 are at moderate risk (PC, 2010). There is a higher prevalence of gambling harm among regular players of poker machines: one in five weekly poker machine players in Australia have significant problems. The association between poker machines and harmful gambling is firmly established in the international and Australian academic literature (Lund, 2006; McMillen, Marshall, Ahmed & Wenzel, 2004; PC 1999, 2010; Potenza, Steinberg, Wu, Roundsaville & O’ Malley, 2006). In 2010, the PC estimated that poker machines “account for 75 – 80 per cent of ‘problem gamblers’” (p. 13). The Commission further noted that harms from poker machines are not limited to those classified as problem gamblers, and that poker machines “pose considerable problems for consumers in general” (p. 13).

10 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Brimbank (C) Melton (S)

Maribyro Wyndham (C) Hobsons Bay (C)

Moreland (C)

Darebin (C)

Moonee Valley (C)

Banyule (C) Manningham (C)

Yarra (C)

ong (C)

Melbourne (C)

Boroondara (C) Maroondah (C) Stennington (C)

Yarra Ranges (S)

Whitehorse (C)

Port Phillip (C)

Monash (C) Knox (C)

Glen Eira (C)

Bayside (C) Casey (C)

Kingston (C)

Greater Dandenong (C) Cardinia (S)

Frankston (C)

Mornington Peninsula (S)

11 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

What do the research literature and the Annotated Bibliography reveal about the community effects of poker machine gambling? A total of 126 research reports published between1980 and 2010 related to the community effects of poker machines were included in the Annotated Bibliography. These were assigned to one of four categories: (a) Empirical studies; (b) Reviews of the literature; (c) Assessment frameworks; and (d) Theoretical, opinion and policy critiques. Key findings from these 126 studies (plus studies published since 2010) provided an understanding of what is known about the community effects of poker machines and gaps in research knowledge. These are summarised below.

Category A: Empirical studies Empirical research findings on the effects of harmful gambling on communities indicate a wide range of correlated negative impacts (McDonald & Greenslade, 2010), many of which are represented in the Productivity Commission’s (1999) diagram (see Figure 2). These impacts include: economic hardship (Law, 2005; PC, 1999, 2010, p. 16); bankruptcy (McMillen et al., 2004, p. 26; Scull & Woolcock, 2005); homelessness (Antonetti & Horn, 2001; Holdsworth, Tiyce & Hing, 2012); indebtedness (Law, 2005; SACES, 2008); and loss of assets including the family home, retirement savings and so forth (Law, 2005). Individuals and groups who are socio-economically disadvantaged are more likely to suffer adverse economic impacts of increased gambling due to their limited financial means (Australian Institute for Gambling Research,1999) and even losses of as little as $15 per fortnight can have significant consequences for individuals on a low income (Law, 2005, p. 40). Other adverse impacts include: increased crime rates – possibly to provide money for gambling or make up the shortfall in living expenses (Crofts, 2003; Wheeler, Round & Wilson, 2010); drug and alcohol issues (de Castella, Bolding, Lee, Cosic, Kulkarni, 2011; PC, 1999); anxiety (de Castella et al., 2011); stress, guilt and distress and general poor health (PC, 1999); depression, suicide ideation, attempted suicide and suicide (see for example Chow-Fairhall et al., 2006; de Castella et al., 2011; Victorian Coroners Prevention Unit, 2013); family breakdown and relationship stress (Dickson-Swift, James & Kippen, 2005; Kalischuk, Nowatzki, Cardwell, Klein, & Solowoniuk, 2006; Krishnan & Orford, 2002); family violence (Borderlands Cooperative, 2007; Suomi et al., 2013); and loss of friendships (New Focus Research, 2003, p. 53).

Impacts documented by other studies have found: child neglect (Tu’itahi, Guttenbeil-Po’uhila, Hand & Htay, 2004); poorer household nutrition and variety (Schluter, Bellringer & Abbott, 2007); insufficient food (Law, 2005); increased demands on the health and welfare sector (Graffam & Southgate, 2005; Victorian Competition & Efficiency Commission, 2012); disruption to study and work (Abbott, 2001; McMillen et al., 2004; Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General, 2012, p. 75); reductions in charitable donations and fundraising (Marshall, 1998; SACES, 2005a); and a reduction in the level of social capital – measured in terms of trust volunteerism, group participation, charitable giving and fundraising, and meeting obligations to family and friends (Griswold and Nichols, 2006). Leakages from the regional economy and reduced levels of regional income and employment have also been documented (Deakin Human Services & Melb Inst of App Eco & Soc Services, 1997; New Focus Research, 2003, p. 50). On the other hand, a small number of studies have reported some positive outcomes including enhanced facilities and recreation opportunities and funding for clubs and community organisations (PC, 1999, 2010), increased job opportunities and increased personal income, and increased tourism (mainly in relation to American casinos, see for example Long, 1996).

12 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Figure 2. Impacts of harmful gambling

Suicide Job loss

Stress

Absenteeism

Depression and suicide

Poor performance

Poor health

Work and study

Professional

Financial hardship Debts

Impacts

Community services

Financial

Loads on charities

Asset losses

Loads on public purse

Bankruptcy Loan sharks Interpersonal

Legal

Neglect of family

Theft

Impacts on others

Imprisonment

Relationship breakdown Domestic and other violence

Productivity Commission (1999, p7.3, Figure 7.1, Impacts of problem gambling) 13

13 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Category B: Reviews of the literature The literature reviews examined varied in their focus, breadth, and approach to assessing published research. For example, one review (Brown, McLure, & Johnson, 1998) is an annotated bibliography focusing on the health impacts of gambling on women from diverse cultural backgrounds. Another (Delfabbro, 2011) evaluates the scientific merits of Australian research. Others (such as McGowan, Droessler, Nixon & Grimshaw, 2000) adopt a critical approach to assessing the research literature, concluding that: The time has come to broaden, conceptually and methodologically, our research in this area beyond the current hegemony of positivist models, methods, and interpretations in the sociocultural domain of gaming and gambling (p. 20).

Category C: Assessment frameworks Framework approaches have broadened our understanding of the ways poker machines can impact communities. During the last decade there has been a new line of enquiry centred on frameworks for socio-economic impact that have sought to gain a more holistic understanding of the community impacts of poker machine gambling. A number of these have arisen from the requirements by certain jurisdictions that community impact assessments must be conducted prior to the introduction of poker machines in a particular locality. The frameworks aim to measure, through quantitative indicators, the positive and negative effects across a range of domains: while some are restricted to social and economic domains, others extend to consider the health, education, employment, tourism, legal, and cultural domains. To date, no single framework has been universally adopted. Of the frameworks identified the most sophisticated are those developed by SACES (2005a, 2008), SERC (2001) and more recently, the Inner Northern Working Group on Gambling in Australia (n.d.); the work of Adams et al. (2004) in New Zealand; and in Canada, Anielski & Braaten’s (2008) framework, and, building on their work, the framework proposed by Williams, Rehm and Stevens (2011). The strengths of the framework approaches are that they broaden the focus from the individual to the community and reveal a wider array of ways poker machines can impact. For example, SACES (2005a) surveyed community medical clinics to assess rates of patient presentations to general practitioners for gambling related issues, while Anielski & Braaten’s framework included factors such as “community social capital (i.e. sense of cohesion, trust, belonging)” (p. 46). However, a number of methodological problems limit the framework approach. The most significant of these is that researchers have had difficulties demonstrating impact for all identified indicators. For example, in the study by SACES (2005a) the researchers found that data limitations restricted their ability to measure or establish causality for many of the community impacts identified, including demand for emergency relief, bankruptcies, work performance and negative social capital impacts. These limitations included the absence of data for some categories, and discrepancies in data collection practices between agencies which rendered data collation difficult.

Category D: Theoretical, opinion and policy critiques This body of work has extended and deepened our understanding of the multiple, indirect and often hidden ways in which gambling can impact on communities. Researchers have identified the moral, ethical and political compromises wrought by the mutual interests of the gambling industry, venue operators and governments. These compromises have also affected some researchers themselves who, usually knowingly but sometimes unwittingly, accept research funding either directly or indirectly from the gambling industry, or accede to the narrow research interests prescribed by governments. These writings have also advanced our epistemological and theoretical stances in understanding the impact of gambling. For instance, positivist approaches that have pathologised and individualised problem gambling have been critiqued, and in their stead, a public health paradigm, feminist perspectives, and classical social theories have been proposed. By shifting the focus from the behaviour of individual gamblers, a number of researchers have argued for studies to attune to the local and contextual forces that may shape gambling behaviour.

14 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

15 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

The rationale for a community level of analysis While the body of research around ‘problem gambling’ and the economic effects of gambling provides a detailed understanding of how the costs are felt by those experiencing gambling harms, many questions about the community effects of poker machines remain unanswered. For example, relatively little is known about how these costs are viewed, experienced and made sense of by the wider community. Broadly speaking, there are seven compelling arguments to extend the research focus from the individual gambler to an exploration of the community-wide effects of poker machine gambling.

1. There is an identified lack of research regarding community-level effects of poker machine gambling. This provides the first and most compelling argument for the community-level of analysis adopted by this project. As noted previously, gambling research has primarily focused on measuring the prevalence and individual impact of ‘problem gambling’, and to a lesser extent, costing the socio-economic impact of gambling. While there is general recognition that poker machine gambling can impact at the community level (Neal, Delfabbro & O’Neil, 2005, p. 125; P C, 1999; SERC, 2001, p. 6), few studies have specifically examined the social and community impacts of gambling (Brown, Pickernell, Keast, McGovern, 2011; McGowan, 2004; Reith & ScotCen, 2006; SACES, 2001).

2. A call for gambling research to be situated in the everyday, social, cultural and historical context in which it occurs (McGowan, 2004). The second argument relates to a persuasive call by McGowan (2004) for gambling research to be contextualised and sensitive to the historical, social and political settings in which it is played out. Based on an extensive review of the gambling literature from 1980 – 2000 (McGowan et al., 2000; McGowan, 2004), McGowan notes that most gambling research is decontextualized, focused on pathology and conducted away from the setting in which it occurs. This project responds to McGowan’s call by adopting a community study approach, locating the enquiry in the context in which the poker machine gambling occurs.

3. The Victorian model of operation which has dispersed poker machines in communitybased venues, coupled with the localised nature of poker machine gambling. As noted previously, the majority of poker machines in Australia are dispersed throughout communities. With strong evidence that the majority of poker machine gamblers travel only a short distance from home to gamble (Delfabbro, 2011; Marshall, 2005; McMillen et al., 2004), it can be surmised that the impacts of poker machine gambling will be most heavily felt within the community in which they are located. Where a casino is established then the community of interest is at the State level… Conversely the introduction of poker machines into local hotels and clubs will impact at the local, or regional level and thus the ‘community of interest’ is more confined (SACES, 2005a, p. 5).

4. The Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) and local governments are required to consider the community effects of poker machines when assessing applications for new venues or to extend gambling in existing venues. Within the Australian state of Victoria, state jurisdiction determines approval of poker machine venue applications. Under the Victorian Gambling Regulation Act 2003, premises may only be approved for gaming if the Commission is satisfied that “[t]he net economic and social impact of approval will not be detrimental to the well-being of the community of the municipal district in which the premises are located” (2013, SECT 3.3.7). This legislation recognises potential effects of poker machines on communities and requires that these be assessed and considered. Currently these assessments are constructed from an amalgamation of social, economic and demographic data, which endeavours to build a picture of the community and to estimate the ways in which new or expanded poker machine venues will affect the local community. However, there is little available research specifically examining the community effects of poker machines.

16 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

5. Legal precedent set by the Supreme Court of Victoria (2008:11) establishes the significance of community opinion in poker machine planning applications. The significance of the community in poker machine applications was clearly established in legal precedent set by the Supreme Court of Victoria (2008:11). The Court’s ruling in Macedon Ranges Shire Council v Romsey Hotel Pty Ltd & Anor (2008) found that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) “erred in law when it disregarded the evidence of community opposition to the proposed introduction of gaming machines.” As McDonald and Ollerenshaw (under review) note, “this decision established a legal precedent for the State of Victoria, and recognised the voice of communities and local governments in planning approvals for EGMs”, effectively repositioning communities as active agents in relation to community based poker machines (p. 19). Consequently, a shift in the level of research from the individual to local communities is warranted.

6. Community is the level at which many of the effects of gambling harm are dealt with. The consequences of harmful gambling are frequently responded to at the community level by a range of individuals, including family, friends and colleagues, and by organisations and service providers, including local government, health and welfare services, businesses, and the education sector. Commenting on the introduction of poker machines into the South Australian community of Peterborough, Marshall (1998) noted that the problems relating to poker machines were being dealt with by the local population (p. 245). The often higher concentrations of poker machines in disadvantaged communities (Doughney, 2002; Livingstone, 2001, 2005; SACES, 2005a, 2005b; Wardle, Keily, Astbury & Reith, 2014; Wheeler, Rigby & Huriwai, 2006) would indicate that communities with the least capacity to absorb poker machine losses and organise a response to the effects of harmful gambling, are among those most heavily affected.

7. Community effects of poker machine gambling are not limited to the incidence of ‘problem gambling.’ Much of what is currently surmised to be the community effects of poker machine gambling is deduced from epidemiological studies measuring the prevalence of ‘problem gambling’ and research into the individual effects of harmful gambling. These assessments often attempt to extrapolate community consequence by multiplying findings from prevalence studies across the population of a given area. While this approach may provide a gauge of the prevalence of what is classified as ‘problem gambling’ at the community level, and a level of insight into the associated effects on the gambler and their networks, it fails to come to grips with the more complex and nuanced effects of community based poker machines. In particular, such an approach fails to account for the complex and multiple dimensions of community, including history, culture, place, shared values and identity. This research project recognises the complexity of communities and that variations in context and structure of communities will result in differential effects from poker machines. Exactly how these effects ripple through a community remains largely unknown though, and are thus an important matter for investigation.

17 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Defining the term community for the purpose of this study Community is an important concept for this project – it describes the focus of the research we undertook and it was frequently used by participants in the research to describe not only where they lived, but the strength and quality of their relationships with fellow residents. Research participants also drew on the concept of community when describing what they perceived as the adverse and positive effects of poker machines.

have reduced the importance of traditional geographic boundaries (Crow & Mah, 2012). Kenny’s (2011) observation that communities can be “a site where relations of power are constructed and controlled” (p. 46) and “as the site of people’s power” is particularly pertinent to the researchers’ interest in episodes of community activism associated with the introduction and expansion of poker machine gambling in the municipality.

Because it is such a significant concept, it is important to give consideration to what we mean by the term ‘community’ within this report. However, because community is a contested term, arriving at a commonly agreed definition for the term is challenging. People variously use community to describe locality, social interaction and other more intangible concepts such as feelings of belonging and attachment. Community is also used to describe shared interest or identity. Overlaying these wide descriptive meanings, community also has an evaluative or normative meaning (Plant, 1974), that is, when people describe what community ‘is’ they often entwine those descriptions with what they believe community ‘should be’ (Bell & Newby, 1974; Dempsey, 2002; Plant, 1974; Wild, 1981). To add further complexity, the term community has been appropriated (often by government and business) and prefixed to other terms as a way of giving them a more positive slant (consider for example terms such as community club, community bank, community program, and in relation to poker machine gambling, community benefit).

Although community is usually considered a positive entity, a number of researchers have also challenged these representations of community and exposed a darker side, showing that communities can also be places of exclusion and inequality (Everingham, 2003, p. 21), and “disunity and conflict” (Brent, 2009, p. 250). Additionally, Crow and Mah (2012) note an increasing tendency in recent research for community to be used paradoxically. On one hand deployed positively to represent characteristics such as “social belonging, collective well-being” (p. 2) or the “Good Life” (Bell and Newby, 1974, p. xliii), but on the other hand, as Mooney and Neal (2009) highlight, used negatively to describe or categorise social problems or problem populations. It is these multiple even paradoxical ways of understanding community which create challenges when working with the concept (Dempsey, 2002).

Fundamental to the meaning of community is the designation of the boundaries that serve to distinguish the community and its members from other areas and non-members (Kenny, 2011). Boundaries can be physical, defining for example a neighbourhood, an institution such as a school or university, or a township; equally, as Cohen (1985) contends, they may be symbolically constructed. Crow and Mah (2012) note that while boundaries can have a positive connotation and signify inclusion and support for those who are contained within a community; they can also have a negative association for some and be associated with exclusion and non-belonging. Symbolic or conceptual boundaries can also be applied within a geographic community to define sub-communities or to distinguish members of the community from outsiders. In this sense, being physically present within a community does not guarantee membership of that community. Moreover, understandings of what constitutes community, methods of study and ways of theorising the concept are continually evolving. Crow & Mah’s (2012) examination of 100 works related to community published since 2000, revealed “much new thinking on the concept of community” (p. 1). In addition, advances in communications technologies mean people can now come together ‘virtually’ in an online community and share common interests regardless of physical location (Blackshaw, 2010; Kenny, 2011), while increased mobility and globalisation

Given the variety of ways community is used, it is perhaps not surprising that the research literature reviewed for the Annotated Bibliography, revealed that the term ‘community’ has been used in at least five distinct ways by gambling researchers.

1) The term ‘community gamblers’ has been applied to gamblers who live and gamble in their local community (compared to tourist or destination gamblers). 2) ‘Community sample of gamblers’ refers to a sampling strategy to recruit study participants (as distinct from clinical samples of problem or pathological gamblers who are receiving professional treatment). 3) The ‘community effects’ of gambling has also been used to refer to the effects on an aggregate of the individuals who gamble within a given locality. 4) The ‘community impact’ of gambling has been used simply as a synonym for the ‘social’ impact of gambling. 5) ‘Community’ has been used to refer to geographical or locality studies of the impact of gambling.

18 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

However, even though there may not be consensus around the precise meaning of community, and the ways in which it has been appropriated and used by vested interests have been criticised, the concept of community continues to have current relevance and utility (Crow & Mah, 2011, 2012). This was evidenced by the frequent use of the term by research participants, and it is participants’ understandings of community which forms the foundation of how the concept will be used within this report. Thus when the concept of community is applied within this report it incorporates the following four understandings of community: •

Territory or place

•

Networks of social relationships

•

A sense of belonging or affinity

•

Normative or prescriptive meanings.

This definition recognises that people can hold membership of multiple communities and that these are likely to extend beyond the place where they make their home. This definition looks beyond the overly positive representations of community and recognises that community can be both places of inclusion and exclusion, belonging and non-belonging (Crow & Mah, 2012; Everingham, 2003). Thus this definition draws in notions of boundaries; both actual and symbolic (Cohen, 1985) acknowledging that boundaries may be “porous” (Kenny, 2011, p. 45) and “fluid” (Everingham, 2003, p. 18). Importantly, community is recognised as a “site where relations of power are constructed and controlled” and where from time to time these power relations are challenged and community becomes the “site of people’s power” through community activism (Kenny, 2011, pp. 45 – 46).

19 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Design and methodology of the research project Research design The design of this research project had three distinguishing features: 1. Focus: the research focus was expanded from the dominant conceptualisation of individual gambling pathology to a community-level analysis; 2. Location: research was conducted within the communities – in the social, political, cultural and historical contexts – in which the gambling was occurring (McGowan, 2004), thus countering the epistemological orthodoxies of research on gambling; and 3. Funding: researchers and industry partners involved with this project made a conscious decision to not pursue or accept funding from the gambling industry and/or government departments that regulate the industry or fund gambling research. This provided the opportunity to conduct the research free from the actual or perceived conflicts of interest associated with gambling research. In seeking to meet the research objective, studies within this project utilised differing methodologies and deployed both qualitative and quantitative methods. A discussion of these is presented in the following sub-sections.

Project funding arrangements and collaborative partnerships This project was funded through an ARC Linkages grant (grant number LP09809647) which provided $170,331 over three years. The industry partner for this project was the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) and 29 partner councils, including the City of Whittlesea where the research was conducted. The collaborative arrangements with the VLGA and partner councils were fundamental to the success of this project. The VLGA garnered significant interest and support for the project from local governments across Victoria. This resulted in 29 Victorian councils providing cash and in-kind support. These councils contributed a total of $93,000 in financial assistance to the project; considerably higher the $37,047 initially committed. These additional resources raised by the VLGA were utilised to extend the support provided to local government by the VLGA through the Supporting Local Governments on Gaming Policy Project. Through the Project, a ‘how-to’ guide on poker machine assessments was developed and training provided in its use. The Project also informed councillors and local government staff regarding poker machine

application decisions by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and of the latest developments in gambling research, legislation and policy. The Supporting Local Governments on Gaming Policy Project played an important role in the dissemination and sharing of a range of information between local government (councillors and council officers) and gambling researchers. A particularly strong relationship was forged between researchers and the VLGA’s Local Government Working Group on Gambling, (LGWGoG). LGWGoG’s membership comprises social planners and other staff from Victorian councils, gambling reform advocates and representatives from organisations dealing with gambling. The collective LGWGoG membership therefore comprised a wealth of knowledge and experience pertaining to the impacts of poker machines on local government and their communities. The ability of researchers to draw on this extensive knowledge has been fundamental to the success of this project. In the early phases of the research, a steering group was drawn from LGWGoG, meeting bi-monthly to guide project activities. As the research progressed, meetings were scheduled on a ‘as needs’ basis and the project team reported back to and received support and guidance from the broader LGWGoG meeting. A strong partnership also developed between researchers and one of the VLGA partner councils, the City of Whittlesea, where the research was conducted. The Project was strongly endorsed by City of Whittlesea councillors and the senior management team. In addition, council officers were highly supportive of the research and offered a range of assistance to researchers over the duration of the project. This included: provision of advice and sharing their extensive knowledge regarding local communities and the history of poker machine gambling within the LGA; introducing researchers to community members and key contacts; arranging office space for researchers; and provision of various historical, statistical and demographic data and advice on interpretation.

Ethics approval Ethics approval was sought from the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee and approval was granted on 27 July, 2010.

20 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Selection of the research community Selection of the research site was guided by the following predetermined selection criteria. These criteria were considered central to meet the varying requirements of the research project: 1. The existence of long established, recent, and imminent installation of poker machines. 2. The presence of communities that had a degree of “boundedness”, so that the full effects of the introduction of poker machines could be measured within the confines of that locality. This criterion was based on conclusive research that most gamblers use poker machines within 5 kilometres of their home (Delfabbro, 2011; KPMG, 2000, p. 57; McMillen et al., 2004; pp. 81 – 82). This criterion excluded metropolitan areas from the study.

Research sites Data collection was primarily conducted across three key sites within the City of Finchley, each of which was given a pseudonym. The differing gambling contexts provided within the municipality provided the researchers opportunities to explore the community effects of poker machine gambling within three diverse contexts: (1) Urban Zone, which comprised five urban suburbs characterised by a high concentration of poker machines and high gambling losses; (2) Buttercross, a rural community, in which club-based poker machine gambling had been available since 1996; and (3) Greenridge, a developing community in a ‘greenfield’ housing estate in which the introduction of poker machine gambling was imminent.

3. The community was of a sufficient population size to have a reasonably well developed local economy, health and welfare services, education system (for example, kindergarten and primary school), and a range of groups and voluntary associations. This was to ensure that the full effects of the introduction of poker machines could be ascertained. 4. The community had a range of socio-economic advantage and disadvantage. This criterion aimed to avoid building bias into the project design by situating the research in a predominately disadvantaged community where it was anticipated adverse effects would be greater. 5. Key stakeholders were supportive of the research project, and were able to facilitate access to the community and its members. 6. The community was within reasonable travelling distance of the research team’s base. Using a matrix, five potential locations were assessed for their ability to meet each of these criteria. Following wide consultation and consideration of all options, the project team settled on a peri-urban municipality which encompassed a diversity of community types and gambling environments. The municipality was given the pseudonym, the ‘City of Finchley’.

21 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Methodologies and data collection Reflecting the interdisciplinary approach of this project, and the diversity in gambling and community contexts, each of the three studies deployed a different research methodology and variety of qualitative and quantitative methods (see Table 1). Data collection commenced in late 2010 and concluded in 2014.

Table 1. Research sites, methodologies and methods Site

Site Description

Methodology

Methods of data collection

Urban Zone

• •

Highly urbanised Multiple club and hotel venues High losses

Qualitative interviewing

Face-to-face and phone interviews

•

Buttercross

• • •

Rural community One club venue Poker machine gambling introduced 1996

Critical ethnography

Interviews observations Document & secondary data analysis

Greenridge

•

New ‘greenfield’ community Hotel based poker machine gambling introduced December 2013

Pre & post-test community survey

Community questionnaire

•

Methods Observation Participant and nonparticipant observation were utilised in the Buttercross township study across a number of settings. While the majority of observations involved full disclosure of the role of the researcher, in some cases when observations were conducted in public spaces, full disclosure was not possible. Given the hidden nature of many of the impacts of harmful gambling, it was anticipated that observation may be less enlightening than is usually the case with ethnographic studies and there would be a greater reliance on interviews to gather data. This proved to be the case; however, observations were still invaluable for building understandings of the community and the way members of the local community interacted with the gambling club.

Interviews Semi-structured and open ended interviews were utilised with both the Urban Zone and Buttercross township studies. The Urban Zone study utilised a mix of face-to-face and phone interviews. These were conducted with 22 community members during May to December of 2011. These participants were divided into two groups, (i) a primary research group consisting of 13 men and women living or working in or around Urban Zone and representing vocations that involved significant community contact, including local government, social welfare, religion and the emergency services; and (ii) a supplementary research group consisting of a further nine participants comprising seven members of a Men’s Shed and two representatives from the poker machine industry. The 13 participants in the primary research group were asked the following key questions about poker machines:

• •

•

Their personal feelings about the introduction of poker machines in the community; How they would feel about additional machines or venues being placed into their community or neighbouring communities; and What impacts positive or negative they had noticed since their introduction.

22 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

The results of the 13 primary interviews were examined and the impacts reported then sorted into themes. The Buttercross township study comprised 51 in-depth interviews. Participants were selected on the basis that they were identified as willing to share their experiences and opinions and able to offer insight into the research topic. The majority of interview participants (44) were drawn from local community members (those living in or around Buttercross or employed predominantly in the township), the remaining seven interviews were conducted with individuals with a connection or interest in both poker machines and the Buttercross township, but not actually residing or working solely in Buttercross. Organisations represented by the 51 participants included: the gambling club (staff, management and club members – including those in positions of responsibility); the education sector; local government (councillors and council officers); sporting, recreation and service clubs; the health and welfare sector; church groups; business people; and general community members. Some participants held multiple roles within the community. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and then returned to participants for validation and clarification. Nvivo 9 software was utilised to assist with data collation and storage. Consistent with a qualitative approach, data analysis was an inductive, bottom-up process, commencing with describing and organising (coding) the data as explained by Braun and Clarke (2006); Creswell (2009); Miles and Huberman (1994), and Patton (2002), and gradually sorting and consolidating the codes into potential themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 89).

Community survey The Greenridge study utilised a survey of residents to assess community health and wellbeing prior to the introduction of poker machines. This survey will be readministered later in 2014 to asses any changes following the commencement of poker machine gambling. The questionnaire developed measured attitudes and behaviours toward the presence of poker machines in communities and asked about community characteristics, life satisfaction, social cohesion and networks. These data set a benchmark for community wellbeing for later comparison. Further questions asked about behaviour associated with poker machine use including a ‘problem gambling’ scale, the anticipated effect the imminent installation of poker machines will have on satisfaction with the local community, attitudes toward gambling, and current participation in poker machine gambling. These questions will enable measurement of the reach of poker machines in the community before poker machine gambling was established within the community and provides another benchmark for further measurement afterwards. An open-text question, ‘Is there anything else you would like to say about the effect of poker machines on community wellbeing?’ was added to collect any additional comments. 23

In October 2013, 2,000 questionnaires were posted to random addresses supplied by Finchley Council. In December 2013, another 600 questionnaires were hand delivered to letterboxes in randomly selected streets in the survey community. In an effort to tap into the online community, the survey was also made available online in December. The link was distributed through email networks with the help of the Place-based Community Development Officer and posted on community Facebook pages. A flyer inviting householders to take the survey online was distributed to 6,000 households. All online responses were made between 4 – 18 December, 2013. All distribution methods were random so it is not known if some households received the survey and/or link more than once. There were 257 respondents to the questionnaire. The age range was between 18 and 81, with around one-third of respondents aged 39 and under, one third aged 40-53, and one third aged 54 and over. Around 37% were male and 63% were female. The household types were in a similar pattern to the community profile depicted by census data. Two-parent families with children at home was the largest group (40%) followed by couples with no children (22%). People living alone made up 13% of the sample, and one-parent families made up 6% of the sample. The majority of respondents were in the workforce, with 55% working fulltime and 17% working part time. Retirees made up 16% and those reporting home duties were 6%. The remainder reported as either students (4%) or unemployed (1%). Nearly 42% of respondents had lived in their current home for less than two years.

Document review and artefact analysis A wide range of documents and artefacts were retrieved and examined as part of data collection. Documentation included: council planning, consultation and policy documents; annual reports and websites; media (radio and newspaper) archives; and local histories; governmental policy and legislation.

Secondary data Additional sources of data were also located and analysed to assist in building a richer understanding of the ways the effects of poker machines reverberate through the community. These data comprised a range of ABS data; gambling expenditure and other data compiled by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR); and data compiled by the City of Finchley.

23 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Descriptions of each of the research sites Urban Zone The first study was conducted across an area comprising five urban suburbs. As noted previously, this area has been given the pseudonym ‘Urban Zone’. The combined population of these suburbs is 94,982 (61% of the municipality’s 154,877 total population). As the selected 2011 Census data presented in Table 2 indicates, the suburbs which comprise Urban Zone are distinguished by a number of distinctive features, for example, there are significant differences between the suburbs in the SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) scores across the five suburbs. IRSAD scores in three of the suburbs range from 885-974; this places these suburbs in the 5th – 29th percentiles, indicating they are relatively disadvantage compared to areas with a higher score. IRSAD scores for the remaining two suburbs are 1006 and 1026; placing these areas in the 48th and 62nd percentiles and indicating they are relatively more advantaged. Unemployment rates also vary significantly across the five suburbs (5.6 to 11.7%) compared to 5.5 and 5.4% for Greater Melbourne and Victoria. Differences also exist between the percentage of the population (aged 15 plus) who volunteer, which ranges from 6.1% to 11.7%, although volunteering in lower across all suburbs when compared to Greater Melbourne and Victoria as a whole – 15.8% and 17.7% respectively. However, the five suburbs which comprise Urban Zone also have a number of key similarities. They are characterised by rich cultural diversity, with 39.9% of residents born overseas. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people comprise a higher proportion of the population than in Greater Melbourne and Victoria as a whole (0.83% compared to 0.45% and 0.7% respectively). Census data also indicates that compared to Greater Melbourne, a higher percentage of homes are fully owned (39.1% compared to 31.5% in Greater Melbourne), a lower percentage of homes are mortgaged (32.64% compared to 35.3%) and the proportion of households renting is lower (21.2% compared to 25.9% in Greater Melbourne). Less than 9.9% of employed people travelled to work by public transport in Urban Zone, compared to 14% in Greater Melbourne, while 75.6% travelled by car, compared to 65.5% in Greater Melbourne.

Poker machine gambling in Urban Zone Of particular relevance to this research project, Urban Zone is characterised by high numbers of poker machines and high gambling losses. During the time the research in Urban Zone was conducted, there were 9 poker machine venues across the whole of the municipality. Eight of these venues (containing 581 poker machines) were located in and around Urban Zone. Over $99.3 million was lost (expended) in these venues during the year 2011 – 2012 (the year this study was conducted).

24 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Buttercross Township The township of Buttercross is a rural community. The community’s rurality, and until recent decades, relative isolation and stable population, can be seen as contributing factors in the formation of a strong local identity. Many interview participants emphasised friendliness, social ties and a sense of belonging when describing the nature of their community. However, the township has experienced significant change in recent years. Farming activity has declined and encroaching urbanisation from the south of the LGA has repositioned the town from a fairly isolated farming community to a community spanning the urban/rural interface. Additionally, relatively rapid population growth has seen the number of inhabitants grow from 1,553 in 1991 to 4,299 in 2011 (.id Community Profile, 2013). While many residents viewed the growth in population as positive, others believed the influx of new residents was bringing unwelcome urban values and social problems to the community, and threatening the close-knit nature of the community. The town’s role as a service centre for smaller outlying communities, combined with its growing population, has resulted in significant development in the housing, retail and business sectors. A range of services and infrastructure are provided within the community including: a community house; community meeting spaces and halls; a wide range of sporting facilities and clubs; churches; and a range of educational and early childhood services. Although there is a medical centre, aged care facilities, a community health centre, dental, alcohol and drug counselling services within the community, there is general agreement that health and welfare services are inadequate to meet the needs of all residents. Many services delivered in the community are provided as outreach and operate on a part-time basis and residents are often required to travel to the larger urban centres to access services such as radiology. The limited public transport options and privacy issues further impact access to services for some residents.

of engagement and volunteerism. Census data reveals 19.1% of residents over 15 years had volunteered through a group or organisation in the previous 12 months. This is higher than the Victorian average of 17.7%.

Poker machine gambling in Buttercross Poker machine gambling was introduced into Buttercross in late 1996. The community has one club venue which was operating 40 poker machines at the time of data collection. Poker machine expenditure/losses at this venue averaged $2.9 million per year for the four financial years ending June 2009 to June 2012 (VCGLR, 2012).

“It’s a lovely, friendly community…” “I wanted to come back here because it’s a real community feeling here and I missed it…” “I’d say it’s still a cohesive community, though probably with the influx of a lot of new people in the last five years, it’s probably not quite as cohesive as it used to be.” “… a lot of the people that have come up from the city they want that country lifestyle. So even though they’re new to the community, they would stop and say, hello, in the street.” “You can actually just about walk down the street and not bump into anyone who you do know now.”

The 2011 Census (see Tables 2 and 3) provides an insight into the composition of Buttercross, indicating the township has a range of advantage and disadvantage and that in comparison to the Victorian average, children (aged 0 to17 years) and older residents (aged 70 years and over) comprise a higher proportion of the population. Home ownership appears to be highly valued within the community as 30.5% of households own their home and a further 46.4% are purchasing, while in comparison with the Victorian average, a smaller proportion of residents live in rented accommodation. With limited access to public transport, there is a heavy reliance by residents on motor vehicles – 78.5% of commuters travelled to work by private vehicle, significantly higher than the Victorian average of 67.4%, while only 2.6% of residents travelled to work by public transport, significantly less than the Victorian average of 11.0%. Although there are some opportunities for employment within Buttercross in sectors such as health, education, hospitality, trades and retail, many residents travel out of the town for work. Some residents reported that long commuting times hinder the pace at which newer arrivals make connections within the local community. Nevertheless, Buttercross is an active community with a culture

25 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Greenridge Greenridge is a newly forming community, mainly comprising greenfield estates. According to the 2011 Census of Population and Housing, the population of Greenridge is growing rapidly – up from around 6,600 in 2001 to around 38,000 in 2011. This is an average growth rate of 3,000 people per year. It is generally accepted that new communities on the outer urban fringe are characterised by households with high mortgages and low rates of fully owned homes. Household incomes are mostly at the mid-level, and are largely supporting young families. These financial pressures are accompanied by social pressures as the strength of the community builds slowly in an area where nearly everyone is a newcomer. Busy working lives constrain the amount of time for volunteering and community involvement. People who have recently moved to the area may lack connections and are vulnerable to social isolation. There may not be the infrastructure to provide people of all ages with a place where they feel a sense of belonging – a sporting club, the local neighbourhood house, or community action group. Entertainment is most likely to be found at large shopping centres and the local pubs. As with all growth areas, most people are new to the community and infrastructure lags behind. High monthly home loan repayments, and high rates of car dependence associated with life in urban fringe areas, create an increased vulnerability to mortgage interest rates and oil prices. Further pressures are associated with young families dropping to one income, and the affordability of childcare. Analysis of 2011 ABS Census data indicates Greenridge possesses many of these characteristics (see Table 2 and Table 3). A very high proportion of households in Greenridge are purchasing their homes with a mortgage (66%) compared to 35% of households in Greater Melbourne. A smaller proportion have paid off their homes (15% of homes are fully paid) compared to all households in Greater Melbourne (where 31% are fully owned). Mortgages are bigger, and far more households spend 30% or more of their income on their mortgage repayments, an indicator of housing stress. In Greenridge, 25% of households experience mortgage stress compared with 11% overall in Greater Melbourne. The median monthly mortgage repayment in Greenridge is $2,113 which is significantly higher than the $1,333 median paid by all households in Greater Melbourne. Rent is also higher in Greenridge ($350 per week) compared to $300 per week in Greater Melbourne. However, a much smaller proportion of households rent their home in Greenridge (16%) compared to

26% in Greater Melbourne. This indicates high home ownership aspirations in Greenridge, with many households spending a large proportion of income on paying the mortgage. Data from the ABS 2011 Census also reveals car ownership in Greenridge is higher than Greater Melbourne, with 74% of households in Greenridge having two or more cars, compared to 53% in Greater Melbourne. This is reflected in public transport use, with less than 7% of employed people travelling to work by public transport in Greenridge, compared to 14% in Greater Melbourne, while 77.5% travelled to work by car, compared to 65.5% in Greater Melbourne. When looking at census data alone, the level of volunteering in a community is a good indicator of social networks, inclusiveness and participation. However, in newly forming communities, opportunities may not always be available. In Greenridge, 11.5% of the population aged over 15 did voluntary work through a group or organisation, compared to 16% of the Greater Melbourne population. On the other hand, the community is well connected with access to the internet – 86% in Greenridge, compared to 76% in Greater Melbourne (ABS, 2013) Compared with the metropolitan area of Greater Melbourne, Greenridge has a youthful population. The median age is 30 in Greenridge, compared to 36 in Greater Melbourne. Children aged 11 and under make up 23% of the population. The ‘young workforce’ aged 25 – 34 have a strong presence in this area, as do the ‘parenting and homebuilding’ age group (35 – 49 years). The area holds a strong appeal to young families who value the open spaces, the commonality of life-stage, and the potential and opportunities that go with settling in a new area. There is sense of literally ‘breaking new ground’ with aspirations to create a safe and friendly new community.

Poker machine gambling in Greenridge In Greenridge, the local hotel, given the pseudonym of ‘Bounty Hotel’ closed in June 2012 for major renovations which increased the size of the hotel fourfold. The Bounty reopened in late December 2013 with a new ‘gaming’ room holding 40 poker machines and a range of contemporary café, bistro and bar facilities.

“It’s open living, clean, friendly and has great walking and riding tracks.” “Lots of young families.” “People take pride in their properties.” “I’m away from city worries, fear & traffic.” “A new home of our own.” “I have a real sense of community, it has so much potential.”

26 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Table 2. Selected 2011 ABS Census data related to the research communities People

Urban Zone

Buttercross

Greenridge

Greater Melbourne

Victoria

Population

94,982

4,299

38,321

3,999,982

5,354,042

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

0.83%

1.0%

0.6%

0.45%

0.7%

Born overseas

39.9%

14.6%

24.5%

36.7%

31.4%

Index of Relative Social Advantage & Disadvantage (IRSAD)*

^885-974 **922 - 955 ^^1006 & 1026 ***1029 - 1069

1056

Home ownership - fully owned

39.1%

30.5%

15.5%

31.5%

33.0%

Home ownership - purchasing with a mortgage

32.6%

46.4%

65.8%

35.3%

34.5%

Proportion of households renting

21.2%

19.5%

16.7%

26.5%

25.9%

Proportion of those renting, renting social housing

1.9%

2.5%

0.7%

2.9%

3.2%

Unemployment rate

5.6% to 9.4%

3.6%

3.9%

5.5%

5.4%

Travel to work by public transport

9.9%

2.6%

6.7%

13.9%

11.1%

Travel to work by private vehicle

75.6%

78.5%

77.5%

65.5%

67.4%

Volunteered through a group or organisation

6.1% to 11.7%

19.1%

11.5%

15.8%

17.7%

Median age

Median household weekly household income

$1,212

$1,643

$1,333

$1,216

Median monthly mortgage payment $

$1,800

$2,113

$1,810

$1,700

Median weekly rent $

$225

$350

$300

$277

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011 Census Data. Compiled by .id Community Profile. *The SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) scores combine a range of Census data (including education level, income, mortgage repayments, employment and so forth) to rank geographic areas across Australia in terms of their relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage. Lower scores indicate an area is relatively disadvantage compared to an area with a higher score. ^ three of the suburbs in Urban Zone ^^ two of the suburbs in Urban Zone **older areas of Buttercross township ***newer areas of Buttercross township

Table 3. Age structure by life stage in 2011 as percentage of total population Age group

Urban Zone %

Buttercross %

Greenridge %

Greater Melbourne %

Victoria %

Babies and pre-schoolers (0 to 4)

6.1

7.8

10.6

6.5

6.4

Primary school (5 to 11)

8.2

10.7

12.2

8.4

8.5

Secondary school (12 to 17)

7.5

8.4

8.0

7.3

7.5

Tertiary education & independence (18 to 24)

10.6

8.9

8.1

10.1

9.6

Young workforce (25 to 34)

10.3

19.7

15.4

14.2

Parents and homebuilders (35 to 49)

20.6

22.2

25.0

22.0

21.4

Older workers & re-retirees (50 to 59)

10.8

8.4

12.1

12.5

Empty nesters and retirees (60 to 69)

9.9

9.2

4.9

9.0

9.7

Seniors (70 to 84)

9.0

2.5

7.4

8.1

Frail aged (85 and over)

1.1

2.7

0.7

1.8

2.0

Total

100.0

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Compiled by .id Community Profile.

27 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Key research findings Urban zone study Although this was the smallest of the three studies, the targeted interviewing of individuals working across social welfare, the emergency services, churches, and local government provided important insights into the impacts of poker machine gambling within these communities. Significant concerns regarding the impacts of high levels of poker machine expenditure (losses) on community wellbeing were expressed by interview participants in this study. Impacts these individuals reported they were encountering included: increased financial, social and psychological stress on families; vulnerable people being harmed further through poker machines; a lack of support services, and additional, unfunded demands being placed on the existing service system. Interview participants also reported concerns regarding the easy access to poker machines coupled with a lack of alternative entertainment, and concerns regarding State Government reliance on poker machine revenue, the loss of money through gambling from the local economy, and the safety and fairness of current poker machine gambling arrangements. These broad areas of concerns are congruent with literature on the topic, for example see PC (2010), Brown (2013) and previous discussions of the empirical literature within the Project background and context section of this report. What follows is a description of eleven of the key themes identified in this research and some examples of the types of specific concerns that were expressed by the 13 participants in the primary sample.

1. Adverse impacts on families The most often expressed concern about poker machines involved their impact on families. As participant r13 said, “it [poker machine gambling] hurts families and destroys relationships”. Twelve of the 13 participants identified impacts on families. Concerns about negative impacts of poker machines on families included areas such as:

Financial impacts (including poverty, nutrition, health and homelessness) “… they are in so much arrears, but their partner doesn’t know about it” (r9) “… it [poker machine gambling] drains the resources that they work for….losing homes and livelihoods” (r8).

Family cohesion (including trust, relationship stress and break up)

Children (including education, wellbeing and care)

“… this young man tells lies and is devious [regarding his poker machine use] … His mother sometimes doesn’t know where he is” (r1)

“… every cent spent of pokies is money not being used to strengthen families, recreation for families or necessities”(r5).

“… they’ll get their statement sent somewhere other than their home, so their spouse doesn’t stumble across them….soon as it arrives they’re shredded because they don’t want their spouse to see them” (r12).

“… the things that drop off are school outings for your kids, all those things that you don’t – you can defer expenditure on” (r12).

Domestic violence “… family conflict and disintegration over pokies is all too common from my experience” (r13). “… we have very high rates of family violence and we believe it’s attributable to financial pressures” (r10). 28 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

2. Social implications of poker machines The social implication theme was the second most mentioned grouping of concerns (n=11). The participants’ concerns in this theme include crime, poverty, health, mental health, indoctrination, normalisation and cultural change. Participant r10 had knowledge of crime trends in the City of Whittlesea. They stated there were few problems with crime at the venues, but mentioned that high domestic violence rates in the area may well be associated in some cases with gambling losses. This participant also noted that there may well be an issue with the false reporting of matters to the police. For example, they suggested that some claims regarding stolen money or items might be used to help conceal gambling losses. The participant also mentioned that drive offs from petrol stations were a problem and while there was no evidence to confirm it, some petrol stealing may be linked to offenders trying to recoup gambling losses. Participant r4, recounted comments made by a County Court judge who reported presiding over the trials of “… women in their forties, fifties and sixties…first time offenders stealing from their employers to feed a gambling habit” (r4). Participant r9 made it clear that the link between crime and poker machine losses was not easy to establish with current policing procedure.

Suicide was mentioned as a tragic outcome of the introduction of poker machines. Participant r11 said of their experience with problem gamblers that they were often “emotional, always got stress – some try to commit suicide”. One participant (r2) stated there were “many lives lost” through suicide as a result of poker machine gambling losses. This participant gave the example of someone they had known who had committed suicide “because he lost all the money and the title of the house to pokies” (r2). Depression and mental health impacts were also mentioned by participants. A perception expressed by a couple of participants was that easy access and acceptance of poker machines in the community was normalising gambling behaviour. Further, because poker machines were located in venues where children might be exposed to them, poker machines could normalise gambling behaviour and encourage future use of the technology by young people. It was suggested that poker machines “are cutting the social ties” (r2). For example, when talking about a group of women out for a social lunch to “the machines’’ a participant said “they don’t want to socialise, they don’t want to sit and talk about their Christmas plans or Easter plans….I find that a really big change over the last 20 years” (r6).

29 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

3. Impact on the vulnerable

5. Availability and access

Participants’ concerns for vulnerable individuals and groups in their community was apparent in the study (n=10). People with mental health issues, low socio-economic status, the unemployed, the lonely, international students and the elderly were all mentioned as vulnerable groups in this regard. For example, participant r11 said that “some people [gamblers]) are very lonely”. Participant r4 said about an acquaintance, “She has got nothing to do. She goes down to [venue name removed]. They know her name, they welcome her in, give her free coffee and low cost meals – then they milk all the money out of her”. Another said “In cases of trauma, grief and loss one of the things people turn to, alcohol, drugs or gambling as coping mechanisms….I think anxiety and depression are the two most common mental health issues faced by problem gamblers” (r12).

Participants expressed concern that poker machines were simply too easy to access (n=7). In regard to venues located in shopping centres or shopping strips one participant said, “if you’re trying to give up gambling and you’ve got your shopping money, that’s a very, very dangerous mix”(r12). In regard to their experience with problem gamblers this participant went on to say, “they often stop off on the way home from work or the way to work or during their lunch break”. This type of observation was also made by participant r8 who said they “see people drop off the kids and then going to venues”.

“Those with the least capacity to make informed decisions and deal with the losses are all too frequently the ones we see with lives destroyed by pokies addiction” (r7). 4. Lack of access to gambling support services Concern about the level of support available for those with poker machine gambling problems in the LGA was reported (n=8). The LGA did not have a gambling counselling services based in the municipality. The need for support to be available for both ‘problem gamblers’ and those impacted by gambling were mentioned. One participant said of gambling services that “if we outreached to anywhere we would lift the referral rate from that community. It’s just the nature of the beast” (r12). Participant r10 said about the availability of support services for problem gamblers and those affected by problem gambling that “they [community-based services] are inundated, so I wouldn’t say it’s enough”. When asked if there were enough services for gamblers in the City participant r8 said “is there a need – of course this is a growing problem”. Participant r6 said “there is definitely hardly any services to help people affected [by poker machines] in this area”. There was also a feeling expressed that the gambling services could be misunderstood and underutilised by some groups. For example, participant r12 said “quite often the public don’t realise that Gambler’s Help is there for people who are suffering as a result of someone else’s gambling”. It was also mentioned that for some cultural groups in the City seeking outside help for gambling problems was not an option.

6. Pressure on support services Participants expressed concern that poker machine losses were a significant reason for people seeking support from community organisations (n=6). It was suggested that this puts extra and unwanted strain on these organisations and their “limited resources” (r7). Participant r8 said of the community agency they were involved with “the demand here is always walk-ins, there is always appointments – it’s a huge demand”. Participant r6 said, “they [the services] are already stressed out with limited resources”.

7. Scepticism regarding community benefits Scepticism about the community benefits of poker machines was also apparent (n=5). For example, participant r12 said: You’re probably aware that there was some outrage a few years ago when community benefits statements came in and yet staff wages were being put down as community benefit and providing happy hour and providing widescreen TVs for the patrons to watch, you know, were considered community benefit when that is an everyday runnin g cost of providing a venue and getting people in there….the community benefits have always been rorted. When asked if donations from the community benefit fund can sway people’s views of the pokies industry participant r9 said “yes – this is just the way of saying we give something back”. The interviews with this sample indicate the social costs of community based poker machines are perceived to far outweigh the economic and social benefits that might be associated with them. This is consistent with findings from other research (Reith & ScotCen, 2006; Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority, 1997). Participant r8 said, for “the small amount that

30 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

comes back there is a far greater harm done to the community [by poker machines]. So to me that is not even the price that can be paid for the pain and suffering that goes on now…they should not exist”. Another participant said “I guess I sort of see it from a cynical perspective, you know these are requirements, I guess they give back to make them [poker machines] more palatable” (r5). Participant r11 thought that even if there were benefits from poker machines that “There’s lots of ways others and the community pick up the tab” (r12). What might be called benefits of community-based poker machines such as cheap meals, giveaways, cheap entertainment and free coffee were identified by one participant as enticement (r12).

8. Loss of money from the municipality Loss of money from the city was also a concern (n=5). One said of the $99,793,175.05 (Victorian Commission for Gambling & Liquor Regulation, 2011) lost on poker machines in the LGA in 2010-2011 -“It would be spent at the hairdresser; it would be spent on local restaurants; it would be spent at the local motor mechanic” (r12). The participant went on to say the flow on effects of this cash loss could mean “they [business] may not be able to employ as many people as they otherwise would without pokies” (r12). Participant r3 also noted the “stripping” of money from the community had a negative impact on community members and local businesses. Participant r12 said “What I see with problem gamblers is that they find it difficult to have their car serviced. Problem gamblers are usually very good with money in terms of not spending it on things that isn’t gambling”. Participant r4 said about a proposed venue in the City “in its first year of operation it would suck 4 million dollars out of this area. In a cash-strapped area with people on really tight mortgages and budgets we cannot afford that”. Participant r13 stated that “the huge profits that are being made in the City’s venues disappear from the community to never be seen again….that must be bad for the local economy”.

9. Lack of alternative entertainment A lack of alternative forms of entertainment was identified as a concern in this study (n=4). A few participants felt that the lack of alternative forms of entertainment could contribute to greater utilisation of poker machine gambling in the LGA. For example, participant r8 said that “entertainment, there is nothing around here”. Participant r2 said, “there isn’t many places about for young people to spend time and socialise, but they are putting in more pokies”. The industry often aligns 31

itself with the entertainment industry. A participant disputed this claim and said of it “to lose money is not entertainment” (r8). Another participant said about their experience of poker machines “this is not entertainment this is awful….I don’t find them entertaining at all” (r6).

10. State government reliance of gambling revenue (conflict of interest) A number of the participants mentioned concerns relating to the fact that the State Government was reaping substantial revenue from poker machine gambling (n=4). Governmental reliance on gambling taxation was considered by participants to be a conflict of interest that was undermining industry reform. As evidence, one participant highlighted ineffective harm minimisation strategies introduced by governments, including the banning of $100 note acceptors when ATMs don’t give out $100 notes and smaller notes are still able to be fed through the machines at will. Participant r13 said of the conflict of interest caused by the State’s reliance on poker machine revenue “I think it is a great impediment to making pokies less harmful”. Participant r8 stated that “Unfortunately the government rely on their taxes” and they gave this as a reason for why they thought that poker machines would never be removed from the community. On the subject of taxation a participant stated, “I think we should be looking at better ways and forms of getting our taxes ... I would prefer to pay more in taxes where there is no harm to others” (r8).

11. Safety and fairness of poker machine gambling Participants also expressed concern about the way poker machines operate (n=3). For example, one participant said “the machines create some feelings and one feeling is to chase losses” (r11). Concern that poker machine payouts were determined by computer programs that guaranteed the return to the venue, state and operators was also mentioned. Some thought this as unfair as the following comments indicate, “they are all rigged to win” for the major stakeholders (r4). Another said “it’s a guaranteed return to the venue, there’s no gambling here. A computer runs the whole thing” (r13).

31 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Adverse impacts are not limited to those with gambling problems The participants in this study also painted a picture of harm rippling out from the poker machine gambler to impact throughout the community and beyond. Estimates of the extent to which harmful gambling impacts the lives of those around the gambler vary. For example, Kalischuk et al. (2006) estimated that for every problem gambler, 10 to 17 others are affected, while the Australian Psychological Society (2010) suggests this estimate to be five to 10. Whatever the figure, it is clear that negative impacts of poker machines are not confined to the problem gambler. The idea that harm spreads widely outwards from the gambler is illustrated in a model of the levels of gambling impact, which is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Levels of Gambling Impact

Individual

Immediate Family

Extended Family & Social Networks

Neighbourhoods

Society

Source: Western, Boreham, Johnston and Sleigh (2001)

Concerns for community impacts are underlying community action The findings of this study demonstrate that Victorians are justifiably concerned about the negative impacts of poker machines. Indeed, as much of the present costs of poker machines appear to impact acutely at the community level, it is therefore little wonder that so much concern about them is generated at this level. It is of note that it is also at the community level where significant action against poker machines has been initiated, for example in the Romsey case. Increasingly a public health perspective is being advocated for gambling and poker machines (Borrell, 2008a, pp. 75 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 77; Korn, Gibbins & Azmier, 2003; Marshall, 2009). Reducing accessibility to poker machines is identified in this study as a potentially powerful way to reduce community harm from poker machines. Participants recognised that the revenue stream from poker machines would mean they would be very difficult to have removed from Victorian communities. However, some participants were more confident that it was possible to stop new venues and see current poker machine numbers stabilise. To achieve such an outcome communities will need the support of local government. Empowering communities through local government involvement and action has been a powerful force in cases such as Romsey and Jan Juc. Moreover, the community and local government in the City of Finchley were also instrumental in stopping a new poker machine venue from being established. It is clear that there are harmful social impacts from having poker machines embedded within communities. One way to avoid this harm will be to act to prevent venues spreading into new communities where strong opposition exists. It is at this level that local government has a crucial role to play.

32 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

33 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Buttercross Community Study The second research project examined the long term effects of club-based poker machine gambling within a rural township. This study revealed that the ways poker machines can affect community are multiple and complex. These numerous effects, and the way community members responded to them, were found to be inextricably linked with powerful ideological understandings of community in interaction with a range of forces within the macro and local community contexts.

Key findings: 1) Poker machine expenditure (losses) have resulted in tangible and highly visible benefits It is clear that the installation of poker machines in the club has resulted in various advantages for the club and broader community and that many within Buttercross derive some measure of benefit from the presence of poker machines. Revenue from poker machine gambling losses has enabled the club to expand its role as a focal point for community celebrations and sporting and social activity (a role which was developed in the decades prior to the introduction of poker machines).

Existing connections between the club and the community have also been extended as revenue derived from poker machine gambling has enabled the club to provide a range of financial and in-kind community benefits (including financial sponsorships, provision of free meeting-space, and multiple smaller in-kind donations of meal vouchers and so forth). “They’re quite generous with the letting out of the rooms. Very generous … It is a nice atmosphere.” (n5) In addition, the club provides employment for a number of community members. There is no doubt these benefits are highly appreciated by community members and have served to position the club as a focal point of community social, cultural and sporting life. The extensive connections between the Club and numerous other clubs, organisations and individuals within the township are visually illustrated in Figure 4. “It employs people, that’s another thing. They employ maybe a dozen people. So that’s employment in the town for people. They apprentice quite a few young people as chefs in the kitchen.” (n5)

“…it’s a place where we often see a lot of our community, where we can say hello to one another and catch up with people we haven’t seen for a time.” (n1)

“… that’s big to be able to give out money of any sort really, as a donation, consistently, not just as a one off. They are doing it quite consistently. So I think that’s really a good thing …” (n6)

“It’s a nice place to be; comfortable, and a really presentable sort of place. It’s quite a nice place to go for a meal, so it’s a bit of a social hub in that way.” (n2)

The finding of a link between poker machine gambling and the development of sports and venue facilities was not unexpected, being consistent with other research findings (Hing, 2006; IPART, 2008; P.C., 2010). However, the extent to which the club’s use of poker machines had enabled it to position itself as a hub of community social and cultural life was unanticipated.

“It’s pretty much a focal point of the town.” (n3) “But it is a very, very well used venue from the morning right through to the evening and on weekends. Not just for pokies but for a whole range of aspects. So it is a major part of the township here.” (n4)

34 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Figure 4. Word Cloud depicting community engagement with the club Primary School

Playgroup

Masonic Lodge

Catholic Primary

Birthdays

Friends of CFA Engagements basketball

RSL

community social nights

wakes

meals scrabble

nursing home

Rotary

Arts society

football

CWA weddings BOWLS cricket Lions

Bingo festival

Netball Club

Agricultural society

employment Historical society

junior development

Charity fundraisers Adult riders Pony Club

Biggest Morning Tea

Coaching

card games

golf club

Bridge Club

senior citizens

tennis club

Probus

kingergarten

Make a wish 35

35 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

2) Some people believed the benefits from poker machine gambling had been achieved without significant costs A number of community members interviewed for this research believed the benefits from the poker machines had been accomplished without any significant trade-off in community harm. The contention of these community members was that poker machines in Buttercross were in some way more benign than in other communities; that the characteristics of the Buttercross community (including being close-knit and caring) and the characteristics of the club (which was viewed as community minded, providing a range of activities other than gambling, and staffed by people who know and care about the patrons) mitigated harmful gambling. “Yeah, I think you really just get the – I know they do have a lot of trouble with poker machines elsewhere, but they’re not really ever that busy in there. Even on a big Saturday night, you can go and have a meal, and there’s probably eight or 10 people playing the poker machines, so it’s not a great problem but then, like I said, it’s usually the same people that are there playing all the time.” (p7) “… maybe I might know two that have had problems at the Club but it’s not a regular occurrence.” (p8) “Quite often you can go in there – it’s probably two months since I’ve been in there to play their pokies – and there’re not a lot of people in there.” (p9) There was a narrative that – ‘These pokies in this community are okay’.

3) However the research revealed significant costs to some sectors of the community However, the research findings challenged this contention and revealed that the benefits derived from poker machine gambling existed in tension with a range of costs. These costs included: a) Costs of gambling harm – although the incidence of ‘problem’ or ‘pathological’ gambling was not a focus of this study, many participants described the harmful effects of poker machine gambling. Some of these are represented in Figure 5. The harmful impacts included economic hardship, child-neglect and relationship stress and breakdown. b) Costs to charity and welfare services – Charities and welfare groups servicing the Buttercross community also highlighted that harmful poker machine gambling placed significant additional demands on their service. These additional demands are largely unfunded and divert resources from other needs.

“…from the role of the churches in supporting people in need, I don’t think there’s been any doubt that there has been an increase in the numbers of people who need support because of the presence of the gaming machines.” (p2)

“…for us it’s very significant because it eats up our resources, which means we have less time and energy to assist others…” (p12) c) Ethical and moral risks – This research showed how receiving benefits from the club (including donations, free use of club space, enjoying dining in the club, having friends or family work there and so on), simultaneously positioned community members as recipients of poker machine expenditure/losses. People felt both indebted and grateful to the club for what it provided to them and guilty and conflicted because some in the community were being harmed by the poker machines. Consistent with the arguments outlined by Adams (2008), this rendered community members complicit in gambling harms, and compromised their ability and inclination to voice opposition to the presence or expansion of gambling in the community.

4) It is the machine that is the problem The occurrence of harm, even when the gambling was provided within a community and venue which was identified by some as offering a range of protective factors, suggests that it is the gambling machine itself which is responsible for the bulk of gambling harm. While the environment in which the access to the gambling machine is provided can modify this harm, it cannot eliminate it. Although the existence of a club’s strong link with the local community may be viewed by some as a protective measure for the population, these findings have illustrated that the presence of strong community links do not prevent poker machine gambling harms. Consequently, despite sometimes presenting as benign and safe, poker machine clubs cannot be considered ‘safe’ community spaces. In addition to the risk of harmful gambling, club venues pose other more intangible risks, including ethical and moral risks.

36 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Figure 5. How gambling harm affects ordinary community members

“… they’re there every day… they talk to the machines, they pat the machines. They are stuck to the machines, they don’t drink, they hardly talk... they’re chasing their tail all the time, wanting more money. They win and put it all back.” (p11)

“… we personally know a man who came into money…he did lose it all. He put it all in the pokie machines. He was really hooked on it and he kept playing here locally. You can see the results of that in his property too because it sort of looked like it was neglected.” (p10)

“..I’d run into her and she’d say, oh I haven’t seen you for ages and I’d say well I keep on calling into your house but you’re never home. I know that she was around there playing the pokies all the time …. during the day and at night.”

“..she’s middle class, educated …. If she could get her hands on the household accounts, she would have gambled away the lot by now. So they live with this tension of problem gambling.”

“..my brother… he lives close to the club. When he gets depressed and we ring him up and there’s no answer at home, we know exactly where he is. Then, the sad part is he feels guilty, upset with himself and mad.”

“… a young person in my neighbourhood was really upset. She said that her parent had spent all the household money at the pokies and then sold some of her things to Cash Converters.”

37 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

5) While benefits are highly visible, harms are often hidden Unlike the benefits of poker machines, which were highly visible and celebrated, gambling harms were frequently concealed due to shame and stigma. Some interview participants were reluctant to provide specific details about those they knew who had experienced gambling problems for fear of them being identified and others described how some gamblers experiencing problems moved their gambling away from the club to avoid detection. “…and once they get found out, they’ll go somewhere else. Because it is a small community and they’re more likely to see someone else who they might – you might go in there and you’ll see your aunt’s next door neighbour and your aunt’s next door neighbour will say to the aunt, oh I saw Kay playing the pokies the other day. So, they’ll go elsewhere.” (p13) “We have seen with some others they mightn’t always play here locally. If they become too regular it can become a bit of a stigma that they’re sort of known as a, so they may go elsewhere, where they’re not so well known …” (p10) It seems counter-intuitive that gambling harms could remain hidden in the context of a single club in a fairly small rural community. Given the intimacy of the community one would anticipate that gambling harms would be highly visible, and indeed, in some ways they were as there were frequent references by interview participants to “seeing the same ones there”, (gambling on the Club’s poker machines). However, on another level, the effects of gambling harm were often hidden, with community members knowing little beyond the person being at the venue for prolonged periods of time. It appeared that the full effects of harmful gambling, such as not being able to pay bills or buy food or simply get ahead financially (see for example Law, 2005), were often acted out in the privacy of home. The active concealment of gambling problems is likely to be a significant factor in the view put forward by some interview participants that problem poker machine gambling did not occur in Buttercross, or was a minor issue there. Consequently, collective awareness of the harmful gambling of individuals within Buttercross was diminished and the Club was able to maintain the narrative that its poker machines provided community benefits with minimal community harm.

6) Community benefits are a fraction of losses As noted by Livingstone (2007) and Livingstone, Kipsaina and Rintoul (2012), many of the allowable claims for community benefit in Victoria are for costs associated with running and marketing a business, and only a smaller portion relate to activities or purposes that would generally be considered philanthropic or charitable (see Table 4). Using the work of Livingstone (2007) as a guide, Table 5, column 5, seeks to separate those community benefit items that would be generally considered costs associated with running a business (Class B) from those items that would generally be considered philanthropic or benevolent, plus the cost of complying with the auditing requirements of the Community Benefit Statements (Class A and C). This analysis of the Club’s Community Benefit Statements (CBS) revealed that much of what the Club claims as Community Benefit constitutes general business running costs, including staff wages. These findings are consistent with the previous research in this area by Livingstone (2007) and Livingstone et al. (2012). When these general business running costs are excluded, the cash and in-kind benefits returned to the community from poker machine gambling constituted a fraction of the total amount lost (expended) on the Club’s poker machines, and less than the 8.33 per cent taxation concession the Victorian State Government provides to club venues. This supports arguments that these tax concessions (which represent tax forgone by the general community) are an inefficient and inequitable means of providing funding to community clubs and charities (Livingstone 2007; Livingstone et al., 2012; PC, 2010). These taxation concessions preference club poker machine businesses over other clubs and assist to legitimate the presence of poker machines within communities. “The community benefits have always been rorted. I’m sure the Club offers subsidised meals, but again how much of that is community benefit and how much of that is sucking people into go gamble. You know, even, there’s free cheese in a mouse trap.” (p15)

38 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Table 4. Description of activities or purposes that constituted allowable CBS claim categories within classes A, B and C for the years July 2008 - June 2012 Class of claim

Category within the class

Class A

(a) Donations, gifts and sponsorships (including cash, goods and services) (b) Cost of providing and maintaining sporting activities for use by club members (c) Cost of any subsidy for the provision of goods and services but excluding alcohol (d) Voluntary Services provided by members and/or staff of the club to another person in the community (e) Advice, support and services provided by the RSL (Victorian Branch) to ex-service personnel, their carers and families

Class B

(a) Capital expenditure (b) Financing costs (including principal and interest) (c) Retained earnings accumulated during the year (d) Provision of buildings, plant and equipment over $10,000 per item excluding gaming equipment or the gaming machine area of the venue (e) Operating costs

Class C

(a) Provision of responsible gambling measures and activities but excluding those required by law (b) Reimbursement of expenses reasonably incurred by volunteers (c) CBC preparation and auditing expenses

Source: Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (2013)

Table 5. Club CBS Claims as a component of poker machine revenue/losses Financial year ending

Poker machine losses/ revenue

Total community benefit claimed (Class A, B, C)

Class A, plus Class C community benefit claims

Class A & C community benefit claims as % of losses

30 June 2009

$2,978,881

$876,172

$130,383

4.35%

30 June 2010

$2,986,149

$799,911

$131,582

4.41%

30 June 2011

$2,779,255

$901,598

$143,419

5.16%

30 June 2012

$2,883,331

$980,528

$137,329

4.76%

30 June 2013

$2,666,559

$750,454

$74,439

2.79%

Source: Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (2013)

39 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

7) Poker machines inveigle themselves into ‘community’ One of this study’s key findings was an understanding of the means by which poker machines were able to insinuate their way into community life and people’s understandings of community, and secure a legitimate presence. This process of insinuation and legitimation was inextricably linked with the location of the machines in a community club. This research traced the history of poker machine gambling in Buttercross and revealed how, from the beginning, the provision of poker machines was linked to, and exploitative of, understandings of community. Key figures within the club mobilised the construct of community to justify the establishment of poker machine gambling within the township, presenting poker machines as a means of building facilities to benefit the whole community. Association with a community club enabled the poker machines to ‘appropriate’ the positive connotations of community including a sense of belonging, feelings of security, wholesomeness and safety (Bauman, 2001).

8) Location of poker machines within a club normalises gambling and legitimises their presence The extensive links between the club and the wider community and its value to community members was a recurrent theme amongst interview participants. The coming and going of community members for meetings, dining and sporting activities, and the routine use of the club for wakes, birthdays, engagements and so on, positioned the club space as a focal point of community life. Combined with the Club’s provision of donations and sponsorship to community groups and individuals, this normalised and legitimated the presence of poker machine gambling. The popular belief that club-based poker machines are fundamentally different to hotel-based machines further legitimised the presence of poker machines within the club. While club-based machines were perceived by many interview participants as benefiting community, through the provision of improved facilities, donation to community groups and so forth, those operated by hotels were viewed as benefiting only the business owners.

“As for the benefit of poker machines, I’m of the opinion that any money they make from a club goes back into the community. Whereas, in a hotel, if there is a profit, the money goes into the pocket of the owner of the hotel.” (p16) “I don’t think they should be in pubs. I definitely disagree with them being in pubs. Clubs are different, they’re a social – pubs are different, go around and have a beer. That’s just my opinion that they shouldn’t be in pubs.” (p17)

9) High levels of misinformation were identified at the community level This study documented high levels of misinformation at the community level regarding the safeguards provided through regulation, the effects of poker machine gambling, and the extent of benefits distributed to the community. This misinformation reinforced acceptance of current gambling arrangements. However, at times local government, community groups, advocates for gambling reform, and the media, campaigned to expose these misconceptions and more accurately inform communities regarding issues including: the (actual) level of gambling losses; the proportion of losses returned to communities; government and industry complicity; and so forth.

10) Dominant gambling discourses are reproduced at the community level Consistent with previous findings, the research confirmed that dominant gambling discourses which explain gambling harm as individual responsibility and pathology are widely reflected in government and industry framing of poker machine gambling (Borrell, 2008a, 2008b). At the community level, the resonance of these discourses with existing conceptualisations of community enabled their replication and reproduction. These discourses were shown to marginalise and disempower those harmed by gambling by positioning them as being primarily responsible for the creation and maintenance of gambling harms (Borrell, 2008a). “I do think that’s a very individual thing, I think it’s an individual’s own problem and that they should sort it out, that’s my opinion.” (n18)

40 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

“...you can find any number of pokies venues around here, but try finding a gambling service located in this City”(r13).

“I don’t have anything against people playing pokies or that. But I do have a problem with people who can’t control it. I don’t blame the venues. It’s an addiction I suppose like you have with drugs.” (n19) These discourses suppress help-seeking behaviour by reinforcing shame and stigma (see Thomas, Lewis & Westberg, 2012) and work to condone current gambling arrangements and inaction on harmful gambling. This was particularly evident at the venue level where the amelioration and prevention of gambling harm has been significantly weakened by an overemphasis of the concept of ‘responsible gambling’ and its reliance on the agency of the gambler. The normalisation of these discourses (Cameron, 2001; Crossley, 2005), and their acceptance as self-evident and common sense meant their validity was rarely questioned (Edwards, 1998, p. 69).

11) Community can both support and supress activism Perceived threats to ‘community’ by the proposed introduction of poker machines has galvanised action in a number of Victorian communities, including Romsey, Jan Juc, Laurimar, Castlemaine and Euroa. In the mid-1990s, the belief that poker machines would harm the community also prompted opposition to the Club’s initial application to establish poker machine gambling in Buttercross. In recent years, applications to install machines in a local hotel have also generated swift and strong resistance by Buttercross residents, including street stalls, petitions, and other public displays of opposition.

12) Emergence of product safety discourse The research has also noted the emergence of a new discourse around poker machines which focuses on issues of product safety (see Livingstone & Woolley, 2007). This discourse challenges dominant discourses around individual responsibility, problem gambler pathologies, and economic benefit. “The fact is people who get into trouble with these machines are using the machines quite frequently in exactly the way that the makers of those machines intended. That is to say they’re there and they’re stuck on them, and they’re hooked and pulled into this trance-like state. That’s exactly what the psychologists and other people intend when they go to all those lengths to design machines that are going to keep people sitting in front of them for as long as possible.” (p14) “They take notes now where they only took coins, where you physically had to get up out of your chair, walk over to the cashier, change your notes for coins and in that time you could think, well maybe I shouldn’t be putting my hand in for that next 20 bucks. Now they can just pull it out of their pocket and the machine actually takes your note.” (p3) Through the rejection of practices which reproduce and reinforce dominant gambling discourses, and the promotion of the product safety discourse, groups, organisations and individuals may powerfully assist the enactment of change.

However, the research also showed how ‘community’ can also supress opposition to poker machines. For example, the placement of poker machines within a club, and successful linking of the club to peoples’ understandings of community, has at times assisted to legitimise the presence of poker machines and supress community activism. The extensive networks of community relationships in Buttercross and the desire to maintain harmonious relations were also found to suppress opposition, with some interview participants reluctant to undermine the cohesive vision of community by being seen to go against the club or by being seen to criticise their use of poker machines. 41

41 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Greenridge Study (preliminary findings) This section reports on the preliminary findings of the Greenridge study. Data was drawn from the initial surveying of the community, which occurred prior to the reopening of the Bounty Hotel and the start of localised poker machine gambling. The purpose of this study is to consider any effects the installation of poker machines will have on a community, using a pre and post survey method as previously described.

Community wellbeing in Greenridge The questionnaire asked about community wellbeing, social cohesion and attitudes and behaviours toward gambling on poker machines. When asked about their preference to continue living in their suburb, 73% of respondents expressed a preference to stay, and 27% were unsure or had a preference to leave.

On the whole, the means were above the neutral mid-point of 3, suggesting a reasonable but not strong sense of community in relation to the neighbourhood. Women had a stronger sense of belonging than men, and men experienced a greater sense of safety than women, but the differences are small.

Sense of community was measured using a modified version of the Sense of Community Index from the Australian Living Standards Study (Weston, 1993). Initial findings suggest there is a moderately positive sense that the locality is a safe place with potential for neighbourliness, but the sense of neighbourhood belonging is not as strong as the sense of safety. Seventy-three per cent of respondents thought it was safe to walk around their neighbourhood at night, while 74% thought children were safe to walk around during the day. Sixty per cent of respondents thought people in their neighbourhood are very willing to help each other out, yet a similar proportion of respondents (60%) have little to do with their neighbours.

Problems that contribute to social disorder were relatively small. On a rating scale (from 0 ‘not a problem’ to 3 ‘a big problem’), driving was the only significant contributor. The average rating for dangerous driving was 1.25 and for noisy driving it was 1.20. All other antisocial behaviours had an average rating of less than 1.00.

Respondents rated on a five point rating scale (from 1 ‘Strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘Strongly agree) a series of statements looking at the extent to which they experienced a sense of safety and belonging about their neighbourhood. The following table lists men’s and women’s average sense of community scores.

Table 6. Sense of community in relation to neighbourhood: mean scores for men and women Index

Men

Women

Total

Sense of safety

3.9

3.78

3.86

Sense of belonging

3.50

3.56

3.54

These are some responses to the question ‘What don’t you like about living in your suburb’ “Lack of public transport and entertainment for families.” “Lack of public sporting facilities, public high school.” “It’s developing so fast that the traffic is a huge problem even after the duplication of (the main) road.” “Too many estates and houses popping up. Losing its charm.“ “Need more cafes.” “Hoon drivers doing burnouts in estate.”

42 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Poker machine gambling among residents of Greenridge Two-thirds of respondents did not gamble on poker machines at all. The remaining third had gambled at least once in the previous six months. At the time of the survey, there were nine hotel and club venues providing gambling on poker machines in the City of Finchley, although none were located within the area known as Greenridge. To find out how frequently residents of Greenridge visit poker machine venues inside and outside the municipality, respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they visited each of the nine venues within Finchley, and how often they visited venues anywhere else in Victoria, including neighbouring municipalities. The list did not include licensed venues that did not offer poker machines. Thirty-nine per cent of respondents had visited at least one venue within the municipality in the six months prior to the survey, and 59% had visited at least one venue with poker machines outside the municipality but within Victoria. Of those who visited venues within the municipality, around half (51%) identified as recent poker machine gamblers (within the prior six months), whereas of those who visited venues outside the municipality, 35% identified as having gambled on poker machines recently. When asked how frequently venues were visited, the number of ‘regular’ venue patrons and poker machine gamblers was very small. Regular visits are defined as at least once per month. Seven per cent of respondents were ‘regulars’ at venues within Finchley, and only 1% were ‘regular’ gamblers on poker machines in Finchley. When asked about intentions to gamble on poker machines when the Bounty Hotel re-opens in Greenridge, one in four of the respondents who planned to visit the venue intended to gamble on the machines at least once. This is a smaller proportion than the respondents who identified as having gambled on poker machines in the last six months (31.5%). Of the respondents intending to gamble on the machines at the new venue, 90% were current gamblers and 10% were not current gamblers.

Figure 6. Respondents who visited poker machine venues in the previous six months

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Other Vic

Finchley

Non-gambler Gambler

43 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Community attitudes toward gambling General beliefs about gambling were measured using a modified version of the ‘Attitudes toward Gambling Scale’ (McAllister, 2013; Orford, Griffiths, Wardle, Sproston & Erens, 2009). Initial findings suggest the community believes there are adverse consequences from gambling, but the beliefs are not strong, especially among gamblers, whose average scores tended toward ambivalence. For example, 62% of respondents agreed with the statement ‘Gambling should be discouraged’, but 24% agreed with the statement ‘It would be better if gambling was banned altogether’. Respondents rated on a five point scale their opinion on a series of statements concerning the nature and consequences of gambling. The statements were scored from 1 ‘Strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘Strongly agree, with 3 ‘Neither agree nor disagree. Scores above 3 indicate favourable attitudes toward gambling and below 3 are unfavourable toward gambling. The following table shows gamblers’ and nongamblers’ average attitudes toward gambling scores.

Attitudes were stronger when asked about the social effects of gambling. Most respondents believed that the increased availability of gambling opportunities can significantly increase the number of problem gamblers (72 %) and that gambling is a serious social problem (69%). Most respondents disagreed with the statement ‘Pokies are good for communities’ (64%).

Table 7. Attitude toward gambling: mean scores for gamblers and non-gamblers Mean attitude toward gambling score

Gambler

Non-gambler

Total

2.77

2.19

2.39

Reactions to poker machines entering the community A series of questions asked about respondents’ anticipated community satisfaction when the poker machines are installed at the Bounty Hotel. These questions are from a survey developed by the University of Ballarat and a panel of legal experts and social planners for the Romsey community. The questions asked about anticipated levels of happiness, contentment and wellbeing living in the community, and also the impact on the area. There were a high number of ‘unsure’ answers, but the majority of respondents did not think their personal wellbeing would be affected.

Figure 7. Anticipated effect of poker machines on living in the area

Figure 8. Anticipated impact of poker machines on the social character of the area

Although more than half of respondents thought there would be no impact on their personal sense of living in the community, a similar number thought there would be a negative impact on the community.

Of the one in five respondents who did anticipate their individual happiness, contentment and wellbeing living in the community would be affected by the introduction of poker machines, most indicated the effect would be for the worse.

44 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Table 8. Anticipated change poker machines will have on living in the area Decrease

Unsure

Increase

Happiness

90%

Contentment

88%

Wellbeing

92%

An open-ended question was asked, ‘Is there anything else you would like to say about the effect of pokies on community wellbeing?’ This yielded a surprising number of heart-felt responses, including these: “I used to be a gambler but have not gambled for over a year now. I think that pokies can cause trouble within families.” “I do not believe they are necessary and I think community hotels would be a much better, family friendly space without them.”

“I would’ve much preferred the (Bounty) Hotel had not installed them and kept this hotel as the charming country, community pub that it was before it was renovated.”

“Yes it is a very fearful feeling when you have a gambler in the home and a pokies venue sign is reminding the person about gambling.” “Might be okay. Just impose strict rules/ guidelines.” “Cheapens the look/feel of that establishment.” “This is a very bad thing for the community, as those that have an addiction to this will destroy their families.” ”Too much money is lost to the pokies.” 45

“Older people can spend their money and get out of the house.” “From personal experience, the introduction of pokies in most venues has greatly reduced the opportunities for aspiring musicians.” “Anti-social - because it is just you and the machine.” “I hope that my kids don’t go there in years to come.” “Pokies should be available locally.” “Gamblers have the responsibility to decide if they can afford it.” “For those living with a gambler, it is a life sentence.” Greenridge is a newly forming community and many of the respondents indicated a strong desire for the cohesiveness and sense of identity which holds promise as the community becomes more established. The re-opening of the Bounty Hotel will provide a much-needed entertainment venue, but this community will also have to bear the inevitable losses on poker machines. As previously discussed, the impact this has will be the subject of a second questionnaire, which will be distributed once poker machine gambling has become established. 45 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Recommendations for policy and legislative reform Findings from this project indicate significant legislative and policy reform is required around poker machine gambling. Local and State governments have a significant role to play in advancing strategies to mitigate gambling harm. So too do both gambling and non-gambling clubs and organisations and the many individuals and families that comprise communities.

Research Findings

Implications

Recommendation

Poker machine gambling harm was documented across the municipality. Harm was linked to both club and hotel venues, and occurred in rural and urban communities.

The current overemphasis on self-regulation as a strategy for minimising gambling harm is ineffective.

Governments provide gambling venues and their staff with the tools to more effectively support their patrons to regulate their gambling by implementation of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;fullâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; pre-commitment and $1.00 bet limits as recommended by the Productivity Commission (2010, chapters 10 & 11).

Receipt of the benefits of poker machine gambling has the ability to compromise individuals, groups and organisations ethically and morally. Individuals, groups and organisations who receive benefits from gambling may unwittingly become advocates for the industry, or find their ability to speak out publicly, safeguard their members from gambling harm, or advocate for gambling reform, compromised (see also Adams, 2008).

Interventions to mediate harmful gambling must include modifications to machine technology Clubs and hotels operating poker machines cannot currently provide safe community spaces

Key roles and responsibilities State government:

policy and legislation Local government, health / welfare sector, community: awareness raising, advocacy Venues:

support enhanced safety measures for gamblers That community organisations, clubs, and workplaces develop policies to safeguard their members, service users, and staff from exposure to the potential harms associated with poker machine gambling by restricting the usage of gambling venues for work functions and activities For policy examples see Banyule Community Health/NWPCP, Ballarat Community Health.

Community organisations, clubs, workplaces: consider risks and issues, develop and implement policies, educate staff/members.

Local government explore opportunities to provide communities with the features of gambling clubs they enjoy, such as locating clean, comfortable and cost free meeting spaces alongside cafĂŠ/ bistro and other recreational activities. See for example the City of Whittlesea Gambling Strategy 2014-18

State government:

Local government:

policy development, investment of resources legislation/policy

That government assist clubs currently operating poker machines, to diversify the means by which they raise revenue, enabling them to reduce their reliance on the proceeds of gambling and enhance the safety of their club for patrons and club members Adverse effects of gambling are broader than harmful gambling.

That community organisations, clubs, and workplaces develop policies to protect their integrity by barring the acceptance of the proceeds of poker machine gambling (see policy examples listed above).

Local government, peak bodies, health /welfare sector:

consider risks and issues, develop and implement policies, educate staff and members/service users. Promote the strategy amongst other organisations. Community organisations, clubs, workplaces: consider risks and issues, develop and implement policies, educate staff and members.

46 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Key roles and responsibilities

Research Findings

Implications

Recommendations

Many of the costs associated with harmful poker machine gambling are being borne within the community where the gambling is occurring by family, friends, colleagues, and local charities. Local government obligations around venue applications are also unfunded

Costs and benefits of gambling are inequitably distributed.

That charity, local government and other organisations currently bearing the costs associated with harmful poker machine gambling and with venue applications are adequately resourced. Programs should be resourced and targeted at the community level where the effects of gambling harm are predominately being felt. It is imperative that additional resources are distributed in such a way as to avoid further legitimisation of community based gambling.

State government:

The cash and in-kind benefits returned to the community from poker machine gambling (known in Victoria as ‘Community Benefit’) constitute a fraction of the revenue lost (expended) on the club’s poker machines (this is consistent with previous analyses by Livingstone, 2007, Livingstone, et al., 2012).

Taxation concessions for Community Benefit preference club poker machine businesses over other clubs and assist to legitimate the presence of poker machines within communities.

Taxation concessions for club based poker machine businesses should be phased out in accordance with the recommendations by the Australian Productivity Commission (2010, p. 6.30-6.32).

State government:

Revenue currently forgone by providing gambling clubs with taxation concessions would more equitably benefit community organisations if it was collected by government and distributed to community groups via an independent body. As noted previously, it is imperative that additional resources are distributed in such a way as to avoid further legitimisation of community based gambling.

awareness raising, advocacy

Linking of poker machines to community facilities assists to legitimise and normalise gambling. This is particularly evident with club venues.

Those responsible for assessing new or extended poker machine gambling applications (local government and VCGLR) should be cautious of proposals/assessments which emphasise provision of community facilities and donations associated with applications.

VCGLR:

As previously recommended, local government should explore opportunities to provide communities with desired facilities that are not linked to gambling activity.

policy development, partnerships and targeted investment to deliver community facilities and support.

policy

Local government, health / welfare sector, community: awareness raising of the costs of gambling harm and responding to applications and advocacy for adequate resourcing

legislation/policy

Local government, health / welfare sector, community:

The 8.33 per cent tax concession provided to clubs to provide Community Benefit represents tax forgone by the general community and is an inefficient and inequitable means of providing funding to community clubs and charities (Livingstone 2007; Livingstone, et al., 2012; PC, 2010) Much of what was claimed as community benefit constitutes general business running costs (Livingstone, 2007; Livingstone, et al., 2012). Poker machine gambling in clubs is linked to the provision of sought after and desirable community facilities (including dining, sporting and recreation spaces). A similar pattern is emerging in the establishment of new club and hotel venues in greenfield housing estates. Placement of poker machines within existing clubs assists to embed them within the complex web of relationships that make up communities.

Community advocacy and action to oppose the introduction and expansion of poker machine gambling should be supported by local government, community organisations and advocates for gambling reform. .

policy and assessment criteria for applications for new/ expanded poker machine gambling. Local government:

Community organisations, clubs, workplaces:

consider risks and issues, develop and implement policies, educate staff and members.

Local groups must consider the risks associated with receiving proceeds of gambling – ethical, moral and power of these donations to compromise duty to membership, sanitise gambling and gambling harm and introduce membership to gambling.

47 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Key roles and responsibilities

Research Findings

Implications

Recommendations

Dominant gambling discourses play key roles in the reconciliation, denial and downplaying of the harmful effects of poker machine gambling and the accentuation of the benefits.

Dominant gambling discourses assist to maintain the status quo by encourage acceptance of and legitimisation of gambling harm.

It is recommended that health and welfare services, local government, community groups, and the media challenge the dominant representations of harmful gambling as being issues of primarily individual responsibility or pathology.

Local government, peak bodies, health /welfare sector:

High levels of misinformation at the community level were documented concerning poker machine gambling, including the safeguards provided through regulation, the effects of poker machine gambling, and the extent of benefits distributed to the community. This misinformation supported acceptance of current gambling arrangements.

Despite poker machine gambling receiving regular media coverage, key messages regarding the impacts of poker machine gambling and effective strategies to address harm are not being consistently delivered.

It is recommended that misinformation and politicisation regarding poker machine gambling at the community level should be actively and continually countered by local government, community groups, anti-gambling advocates, and the media.

Local government, community groups, advocates for safer gambling, and the media:

An absence of community opposition towards new/ expanded venues may not on its own be taken to indicate community acceptance.

Assessments by Communities of the full implications of proposals for new or expanded poker machine gambling should be supported by local government and community organisations with specialist knowledge regarding gambling impacts.

Local government, health / welfare sector:

policy development, refusal to replicate dominant discourses in policy and speech, investment in information resources, community awareness and advocacy.

expose misconceptions and more accurately inform communities regarding issues including: gambling losses, the (real) level of gambling losses returned to communities, government and industry complicity, and so forth.

Unlike the benefits of poker machines, which were highly visible and celebrated, costs were frequently concealed. Three factors were found to have the power to support or suppress local based community action around the introduction or expansion of poker machine gambling: 1. Sociopolitical and cultural factors 2. Local factors including strong networks of community relationships and the desire to maintain harmonious relations

Communities may require support to consider the full implications of proposals for new or expanded poker machine gambling and to organise a collective response.

Any subsequent action by communities to oppose the introduction and expansion of poker machine gambling should be fully supported by the above organisations.

3. The endorsement of local government and key individuals was shown to be a powerful creator of community agency in any opposition to the introduction or expansion of poker machine gambling.

48 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

provision of information and support. Allocation of resources.

References Abbott, M. (2001). What do we know about gambling and problem gambling in New Zealand: Report number 7 of the New Zealand Gaming Survey. Wellington, New Zealand: The Department of Internal Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/ wpg_URL/Resource-material-Our-Research-and-Reports-New-Zealand-Gaming-Survey?OpenDocument Adams, P. J. (2008). Gambling, freedom and democracy. New York: Routledge. Adams, P. J. (2009). Redefining the gambling problem: The production and consumption of gambling profits. Gambling Research, 21(1), 51-54. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=185982353932249;res=IELFSC Adams, P. J., Rossen, F., Perese, L., Townsend, S., Brown, R., Brown, P., & Garland, J. (2004). Gambling impact assessment for seven Auckland territorial authorities, part one: Introduction and overview. New Zealand: Centre for Gambling Studies, University of Auckland. Retrieved from http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/soph/centres/cgs/publications.aspx Anielski, M., & Braaten, A. (2008). The socio-economic impact of gambling (SEIG) framework: An assessment framework for Canada: In search of the gold standard. Inter-Provincial Consortium for the Development of Methodology to Assess the Social and Economic Impact of Gambling. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1880/45235 Antonetti, E., & Horn, M. (2001). Gambling the home away: A study of the impact of gambling on homelessness. Melbourne, Australia: Hanover Welfare Services. Retrieved from http://hanover.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Gambling_the_Home_ Away.pdf Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2013). Socio-economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), 2011, Table 2: Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage, data cube: Excel spreadsheet, cat. No. 2033.0.55.001, viewed 24 October 2013, Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/seifa2011?opendocument&navpos=260 Australian Institute for Gambling Research, University of Western Sydney, and the Labour and Industry Research Unit, University of Queensland. (1999). Long term study into the social impact of gaming machines in Queensland: An issues paper: The social and economic impact of gaming machines on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Queensland. Brisbane, Australia: State of Queensland Department of Families, Youth and Community Care. Retrieved from http://www.olgr.qld.gov.au/ resources/responsibleGamblingDocuments/longTermStudySocialImpactOfGamingMachinesInQld.pdf Australian Psychological Society. (2010, Dec). Gambling in Australia. (Special report: the psychology of gambling). InPsych, 32, 16-17. Bauman, Z. (2001). Community: Seeking safety in an insecure world. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press. Bell, C., & Newby, H. (1974). Introduction. In C. Bell, & H. Newby (Eds.), The sociology of community: A selection of readings. London: Frank Cass. Blackshaw, T. (2010). Key concepts in community studies. London: SAGE. Borderlands Cooperative. (2007). Exploring the links between family violence & problem gambling: Volume 1. Melbourne, Australia: Community West. Borrell, J. (2008a). Understanding problem gambling: The interaction of personal and structural processes. Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. MĂźller. Borrell, J. (2008b). A thematic analysis identifying concepts of problem gambling agency: With preliminary exploration of discourses in selected industry and research documents. Journal of Gambling Issues, (22), 195-218. Retrieved from http://jgi.camh.net/toc/ jgi//22?seq=22 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Brent, J. (2009). Searching for community: Representation, power and action on an urban estate. Bristol, United Kingdom: The policy press. Brown, S., McLure, S., & Johnson, K. (1998). Women, gambling, culture, health: An annotated bibliography featuring articles about women and the health impacts of gambling from a regional and cultural perspective. Melbourne, Australia: Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Health West. Available from: http://www.whwest.org.au/pubs/catalogue.php

49 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Brown, H. (2013). A review of gambling-related issues. Melbourne: City of Greater Dandenong. http://www.greaterdandenong.com/ document/18464/statistical-data-for-victorian-communities Brown, K., Pickernell, D., Keast, R., & McGovan, M. (2011). Socio-economic impacts of access to EGMs in Victoria: Effects on demand and communities (final report). Melbourne, Vic: Office of Gaming and Racing, Victorian Government Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/Socio_economic_impacts_of_access_to_EGMs_in_ Victoria.pdf Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London: Sage. Campbell, C., & Smith, G. (2003). Gambling in Canada-from vice to disease to responsibility: A negotiated history. Canadian Bulletin of Medical History, 20(1), 121-149. Chambers, K. (2011). Gambling for profit: Lotteries, gaming machines, and casinos in cross-national focus. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Chow-Fairhall, J., Watkins, D., de Castella, A., Kouzma, N., Hollander, Y., & & Butler, S. (2006). Suicide and problem gambling: A community partnership. In Proceedings: 16th National Association for Gambling Studies Conference, Sydney, Australia, November, pp. 5-15. NAGS. Retrieved from http://www.nags.org.au/docs/conference_presentations/2006Proceedings.pdf Cohen, A. P. (1985). Symbolic construction of community (1st ed.). London: Routledge. Collins, A. (2006). The pathological gambler and the government of gambling. In J. Cosgrave (Ed.), The sociology of risk and gambling reader (pp. 355-389). New York: Routledge Collins, D., & Lapsley, H. (2003). The social cost and benefits of gambling: an introductory to the economic issues. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19, 123-148. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design. qualitative: Quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage. Crofts, P. (2003). Problem gambling and property offences: An analysis of court files. International Gambling Studies, 3(2), 183-197. doi:10.1080/1356347032000142289 Crossley, N. (2005). Key concepts in critical social theory. London: United Kingdom: Sage. Crow, G., & Mah, A. (2011). Researching community in the 21st century: An annotated bibliography. Connected Communities. Retrieved from http://www.community-methods.soton.ac.uk/resources/Annotated_Bibliography_1_Sept_2011.pdf Crow, G., & Mah, A. (2012). Conceptualisations and meanings of â&#x20AC;&#x153;communityâ&#x20AC;?: The theory and operationalisation of a contested concept. United Kingdom: Connected Communities. Retrieved from http://www.community-methods.soton.ac.uk/resources/ CC%20Final%20Report_30%20March%20GC.pdf de Castella, A., Bolding, P., Lee, A., Cosic, S., & Kulkarni, J. (2011). Problem gambling in people presenting to a public mental health service. Melbourne, Victoria: Office of Gaming and Racing, Department of Justice. Deakin Human Services Australia, Deakin University and Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne. (1997). Social and economic effects of electronic gaming machines on non-metropolitan communities. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority. Delfabbro, P. (2011). Australasian gambling review. 5th ed. 1992-2011. Adelaide, Australia: Independent Gambling Authority. Change to 2008 Dempsey, K. (2002). Community: Its character and meaning. In P. Beilharz, & T. Hogan (Eds.), Social self, global culture: An introduction to sociological ideas (2nd Ed), pp. 140-152. South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Dickson-Swift, V. A., James, E. L., & Kippen, S. (2005). The experience of living with a problem gambler: Spouses and partners speak out. Journal of Gambling Issues, (13). doi: 10.4309/jgi.2005.13.6 Doughney, J. (2002). The poker machine state: Dilemmas in ethics, economics and governance. Melbourne, Australia: Common Ground. Edwards, B. (1998). Charting the discourse of community action: Perspectives from practice in rural Wales. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), 63-77. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(97)00048-X Everingham, C. (2003). Social justice and the politics of community. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing. Fabiansson, C. (2009). Why would anyone want to do gambling research? Gambling Research, 21(1), 25-27. Retrieved from http:// search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=185851923133442;res=IELFSC

50 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Fallon, W. (2008). Stakeholder participation and corporate social responsibility: A critical study of problem gambling in the New South Wales club sector. (Doctor of Philosophy, RMIT University). Retrieved from http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:6662 Gaming Technologies Association. (2013). The world count of gaming machines 2012. Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from http:// www.gamingta.com/contact.html Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (Vic). Retrieved from http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook. nsf/f932b66241ecf1b7ca256e92000e23be/7CCA9AB0F1C8D742CA256E5B00214141/$FILE/03-114a.pdf Global Betting and Gaming Consultants (2013). Global gambling report 8th edition â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Raising the stakes. Available from http:// www.gbgc.com/2013/04/global-gambling-spend-just-us-82-per-capita/ Goodman, R. (1995). The luck business: The devastating consequences and broken promises of Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s gambling explosion. New York: The Free Press. Graffam, J., & Southgate, R. (2005). From pokies to problems: Gambling and the impact on community services in Eastern Melbourne. Melbourne, Australia: Deakin University. Retrieved from http://www.deakin.edu.au/health/psychology/research/ease/ Research-Papers/From%20Pokies%20to%20Problems%20report.pdf Griswold, M. T., & Nichols, M. (2006). Social capital and casino gambling in U.S. communities. Social Indicators Research, 77(3), 369-394. doi:10.1007/s11205-004-6337-7 Hing, N. (2006). A history of machine gambling in the NSW club industry: From community benefit to commercialisation. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 7(2), 83-107. Retrieved from http://pdfserve.informaworld. com/7838_751313631_903401318.pdf Holdsworth, L., Tiyce, M., & Hing, N. (2012). Exploring the relationship between problem gambling and homelessness: Becoming and being homeless. Gambling Research, 23(2), 39-54. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/ documentSummary;dn=659354563147675;res=IELFSC .id community profile. (2013). Community profiles. .id community profile Web site. Retrieved September 28, 2013, from http:// home.id.com.au/id-community/public-resources/community-profiles Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART). (2008). Review of the registered clubs industry in NSW. Sydney, Australia: Government of New South Wales (NSW). Retrieved from http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/Home/Industries/Other/Reviews_All/ Registered_Clubs/Review_of_the_NSW_Registered_Clubs_Industry Inner Northern Working Group on Gambling. (n.d.). Social and Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) Framework for Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs). Retrieved from http://www.socialimpactsofpokies.org.au/index.php/about Kalischuk, R., G., Nowatzki, N., Cardwell, K., Klein, K., & Solowoniuk, J. (2006). Problem gambling and its impact on families: A literature review. International Gambling Studies, 6(1), 31-60. doi:10.1080/14459790600644176. Kenny, S. (2011). Developing communities for the future (4th ed.). Sydney, Australia: Cengage Learning. Korn, D., Gibbins, R., & Azmier, J. (2003). Framing public policy towards a public health paradigm for gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19(2), 235-256. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hjh&AN=12524835&sit e=ehost-live KPMG Consulting. (2000). Report of the 1999 longitudinal community impact study: Main report. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority (VCGA). Retrieved from https://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/vcglr/resources/b8011765-b753-4050-a6e634676d31976c/longitudinalcommunityimpactstudyvol1.pdf Krishnan, M., & Orford, J. (2002). Gambling and the family: From the stress-coping-support perspective. International Gambling Studies, 2(1), 61-83. doi:10.1080/14459790208732300 Law, M. (2005). House of cards: Problem gambling and low income earners in Tasmania. Australia: Anglicare Tasmania. Retrieved from http://www.anglicare-tas.org.au/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=34&Itemid=81 Livingstone, C. (2001). The social economy of poker machine gambling in Victoria. International Gambling Studies, 1(1), 46-65. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eoah&AN=13637478&site=ehost-live Livingstone, C. (2005). Desire and the consumption of danger: Electronic gaming machines and the commodification of interiority. Addiction Research & Theory, 13(6), 523-534. doi:10.1080/16066350500338161 Livingstone, C. (2007). Understanding the community benefit of electronic gaming machines: An interim analysis of Victorian EGM Community Benefit Statements. Australia: Department of Health Science, Monash University. Retrieved from http://www.med. monash.edu.au/healthsci/publications/files/egm-interim-report.pdf

51 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Livingstone, C., Kipsaina, C., & Rintoul, A. (2012). Assessment of poker machine expenditure and community benefit claims in selected Commonwealth Electoral Divisions. Canberra, Australia: Uniting Care Australia. Livingstone, C., & Woolley, R. (2007). Risky business: A few provocations on the regulation of electronic gaming machines. International Gambling Studies, 7(3), 361-376. doi:10.1080/14459790701601810 Long, P. T. (1996). Early impacts of limited stakes casino gambling on rural community life. Tourism Management, 17(5), 341-353. DOI: 10.1016/0261-5177(96)00034-9 Lund, I. (2006). Gambling and problem gambling in Norway: What part does the gambling machine play? Addiction Research & Theory, 14(5), 475-491. doi:10.1080/16066350600836825 Macedon Ranges Shire Council v Romsey hotel Pty Ltd & Anor. (March, 2008). Melbourne: Supreme Court of Victoria. Retrieved from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2008/45.html Marshall, D. (1998). Missing the jackpot? the proliferation of gambling in Australia and its effect on local communities. Australian Geographical Studies, 36(3), 237-247. doi:10.1111/1467-8470.00054 Marshall, D. (2005). The gambling environment and gambler behaviour: Evidence from Richmond-Tweed, Australia. International Gambling Studies, 5(1), 63-83. doi:10.1080/14459790500099471 Marshall, D. (2009). Gambling as a public health issue: The critical role of the local environment. Journal of Gambling Issues, (23), 66-80. doi:10.4309/jgi.2009.23.4 McAllister, I. (2013), Public opinion towards gambling and gambling regulation in Australia, International Gambling Studies, 14:1, 146-160 McDonald, J., & Greenslade, D. (2010). Community impact of electronic gaming machines: An annotated bibliography. Ballarat, Australia: University of Ballarat. Retrieved from http://www.iga.sa.gov.au/pubcons/social_effect/Ass%20Prof%20McDonald%20 Deborah%20Greenslade.pdf McDonald, J., & Ollerenshaw, A. (Under review). A policy shift towards community empowerment in the regulation of gaming machines: Evidence of an emerging public health approach. McGowan, V. (2004). How do we know what we know? Epistemic tensions in social and cultural research on gambling: 19802000. Journal of Gambling Issues, (11) Retrieved from http://jgi.camh.net/doi/full/10.4309/jgi.2004.11.11 McGowan, V., Droessler, J., Nixon, G., & Grimshaw, M. (2000). Recent research in the sociocultural domain of gaming and gambling: An annotated bibliography and critical overview. Canada: Alberta Gaming Research Institute. Retrieved from http://hdl. handle.net/10133/318 McMillen, J., Marshall, D., Ahmed, E., & Wenzel, M. (Centre for Gambling Research, ANU). (2004). Victorian longitudinal community attitudes survey 2003. (No. 6). Melbourne, Australia: Gambling Research Panel. Retrieved from https://digitalcollections. anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/45189/3/VicLongCommAS_FinalComplete_03.pdf Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook

(2nd ed.). USA: Sage Publications.

Mills, C.W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Mooney, G., & Neal, S. (2009). Community: Themes and debates. In G. Mooney, & S. Neal (Eds.), Community: Welfare, crime and society (pp. 1-33). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press. Neal, P., Delfabbro, P., & Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Neil, M. (2005). Problem gambling and harm: Towards a national definition. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/saces/gambling/publications/ ProblemGamblingAndHarmTowardNationalDefinition.pdf New Focus Research. (2003). Study of clients of problem gambling services. Stage one report: The experiences of problem gamblers, their families and service providers. Melbourne, Australia: Gambling Research Panel. Orford, J. (2011). An unsafe bet? The dangerous rise of gambling and the debate we should be having. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell. Orford, J., Griffiths, M., Wardle, H., Sproston, K., Erens, B. (2009). Negative public attitudes towards gambling: findings from the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey using a new attitude scale, International Gambling Studies, 9:1, 39-54 Patton, M., Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). USA: Sage. Plant, R. (1974). Community and ideology: An essay in applied philosophy. London: United Kingdom: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

52 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Potenza, M., Steinberg, R., Wu, R., Roundsaville, B., & O’Malley, S. (2006). Characteristics of older adult problem gamblers calling a gambling helpline. Journal of Gambling Studies, 22(2), 241-254. doi:10.1007/s10899-006-9013-9. Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s gambling industries. (No.10). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/gambling/docs/report Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling. (No.50). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government. Retrieved from http://www. pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/95680/gambling-report-volume1.pdf Queensland, Department of Justice and Attorney-General. (2012). Queensland household gambling survey 2011-12. State of Queensland, Department of Justice and Attorney-General. Retrieved from http://www.olgr.qld.gov.au/resources/ responsibleGamblingDocuments/Queensland_Household_Gambling_Survey_Report_2011-12.pdf Reith, G. (2007). Gambling and the contradictions of consumption: A genealogy of the “Pathological” subject. American Behavioural Scientist, 51(1), 33-55. doi:10.1177/0002764207304856 Reith, G., & The Scottish Centre for Social Research. (2006). Research on the social impacts of gambling. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Government, Social Research. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/08/17134534/0 Schluter, P., Bellringer, M., & Abbott, M. (2007). Maternal gambling associated with families’ food, shelter, and safety needs: Findings from the pacific islands families study. Journal of Gambling Issues, (19) Retrieved from http://www.camh.net/egambling/ issue19/schluter.html Scull, S., & Woolcock, G. (2005). Problem gambling in non-English speaking background communities in Queensland, Australia: A qualitative exploration. International Gambling Studies, 5(1), 29-44. doi: 10.1080/14459790500097939. Social and Economic Research Centre, University of Queensland (SERC). (2001). The social and economic impacts of gaming: A framework for research. Victoria: The Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority. South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (SACES). (2001). The impact of gaming machines on small regional economies. The provincial cities association of South Australia. Retrieved from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/saces/publications/reports/ consultancy/GamingMachines.pdf South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (SACES). (2005a). Community impacts of electronic gaming machine gambling. Melbourne: Victorian Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/saces/gambling/publications/ South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (SACES). (2005b). Study of the impact of caps on electronic gaming machines. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/saces/gambling/publications/ Study_of_the_Impact_of_Caps_on_Electronic_Gaming_Machines.pdf South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (SACES). (2008). Social and economic impact study into gambling in Tasmania. Tasmania, Australia: Tasmanian Department of Treasury and Finance. Retrieved from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/saces/gambling/ publications/index.html Suomi, A., Jackson, A., Dowling, N., Lavis, T., Patford, J., Thomas, S., Harvey, P., Abbott, M., Bellringer, M., Koziol-McLain, J., & Cockman, S. (2013). Problem gambling and family violence: family member reports of prevalence, family impacts and family coping. Asian Journal of Gambling Issues and Public Health, 3(13). doi: 10.1186/2195-3007-3-13 Thomas, S., Lewis, S., & Westberg, K. (2012). ‘You just change the channel if you don’t like what you’re going to hear’: Gambler’s attitudes towards, and interactions with, social marketing campaigns. Health Expectations. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/ hex.12018 Tu’itahi, S., Guttenbeil-Po’uhila, Y., Hand, J., & Htay, T. (2004). Gambling issues for Tongan people in Auckland, Aotearoa-New Zealand. Journal of Gambling Issues, (12). doi: 10.4309/jgi.2004.12.14 Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority. (1997). Social and economic effects of electronic gaming machines on non-etropolitan communities. Melbourne: Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority. Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR). (2012). Gaming expenditure by venue. Retrieved from http://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/home/resources/data+and+research/data/index1.html Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR). (2013). Community benefit statements. Retrieved August 6, 2013, from http://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/home/gambling/gaming+venue+operators/community+benefit+statements/ Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (VCEC). (2012). Counting the cost: Inquiry into the costs of problem gambling, final report. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Government. Retrieved from http://www.vcec.vic.gov.au/CA256EAF001C7B21/pages/ vcec-inquiries-current-inquiry-into-social-and-economic-costs-of-problem-gambling

53 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014

Victorian Coroners Prevention Unit. (2013). Gambling related suicides, Victoria 2000-2012. Melbourne, Australia: Coroners Court of Victoria. Retrieved from http://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/find/publications/coroners+prevention+unit++gambling+related+suicide+reports Wardle, H., Keily, R., Astbury, G., & Reith, G. (2014). â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Risky places?â&#x20AC;&#x2122;: Mapping gambling machine density and socio-economic deprivation. Journal of Gambling Studies.30, 201-212. doi:10.1007/s10899-012-9349-2 Weston, R. (1993). Sense of Community. In P. MacDonald, (ed.), The Australian Living Standards Study, Berwick Report. The Household Survey. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Part 1:

Western, J., Boreham, P., Johnston, J. & Sleigh. (2001). The social and economic impacts of gaming: a framework for research, project report. Queensland: Victorian Casino and Gambling Authority. Wheeler, S. A., Round, D. K., & Wilson, J. (2010). The relationship between crime and gaming expenditure in Victoria. Melbourne, Victoria: Department of Justice, State of Victoria. Retrieved from http://www.responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/ The_Relationship_Betwee_Crime_and_Gaming_Machine_Expenditure.pdf Wheeler, B. W., Rigby, J. E., & Huriwai, T. (2006). Pokies and poverty: Problem gambling risk factor geography in New Zealand. Health & Place, 12(1), 86-96. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2004.10.011 Wild, R. (1981). Australian community studies and beyond. Sydney, Australia: George Allen and Unwin. Williams, R. J., Rehm, J., & Stevens, R. M. G. (2011). The social and economic impacts of gambling: Final report. Retrieved from http://www.ccgr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/The-Social-and-Economic-Impacts-of-Gambling-Full-report-English.pdf Woolley, R. (2009). Making and using knowledge about gambling. Gambling Research, 21(2), 7-10. Retrieved from http://search. informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=676551221218138;res=IELFSC Young, M. (2013). Statistics, scapegoats and social control: A critique of pathological gambling prevalence research. Addiction Research and Theory, 21(1), 1-11. doi:10.3109/16066359.2012.680079 Young, M., Markham, F., & Doran, B. (2012). Too close to home? The relationships between residential distance to venue and gambling outcomes. International Gambling Studies, 12(2), 257-273. doi:10.1080/14459795.2012.664159

54 The impact of the introduction of poker machines on communities: Health and wellbeing consequences

Electronic and printed copies of this report can be obtained from Professor John McDonald +61 3 5327 9611 or j.mcdonald@federation.edu.au 55

55 ARC Linkage Grant Final Report 2014