AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

Recent statistics show that two out of every three New Zealanders have gambled at least once in the last year.  For most it is a harmless, recreational activity, for others however, gambling impacts on their health and social surroundings.  This is the case for some Pacific people in New Zealand.  This essay will discuss how problem gambling impacts on Pacific people, the impact it has on the gambler, and on their wider social circles.  It will then look at how some of these impacts are addressed within the current legislature.  Finally, a population health approach to address the social harms of gambling will be suggested.  This will take the form of an amendment to the Gambling Act (2003).

Based on the findings of the 2006/2007 health survey, the socio-economic risk factors associated with problem gambling are: people aged between 35-44 years old, of Maori or Pacific ethnicity, low educational attainment and residing in an area of high deprivation (Ministry of Health, 2009).  This has led to an excess risk of problem gambling in Pacific communities. Pacific gamblers are four times more likely to develop a problem with gambling than New Zealand Europeans (Ministry of Health, 2009).  These socio-economic risk factors illustrate why problem gambling for Pacific people should be addressed.  Those most at risk of problem gambling are already a vulnerable population because of their socio-economic position.  This is because of the gradient that exists between health status and socio-economic position and ethnicity.  Those in the poorer deciles have worse health status than those in more affluent deciles (Blakely, Tobias, Atkinson, Yeh, & Huang, 2007).  Pacific people also have poorer health than New Zealand Europeans (Blakely, et al., 2007).  The concern with Pacific problem gambling is that it could exacerbate existing health inequalities.

As well as the financial cost, there are physical and social impacts from problem gambling.   Problem gambling has been associated with increased stress, anxiety, depression, smoking and hazardous drinking (Ministry of Health, 2009).  The smoking and drinking behaviour could create further health problems for the problem gambler that they may not have the capacity to address.  For example if an individual develops liver damage from their drinking, they may have limited financial resources because of their gambling which prevents them from accessing early intervention.  The access barrier could be an inability to meet transport, General Practitioner or prescription costs.

The social costs of problem gambling among Pacific communities have also been identified. The Pacific Family study found that maternal gambling was associated with food and housing stress due to lack of money (Schluter, Bellringer, & Abbott, 2007).  In particular mothers who were criticised for their gambling were more likely to be dissatisfied with their housing and have poorer nutritional variety in their diets.  A small study of Samoan gamblers found that gambling impacted on their ability to meet traditional obligations.  The respondents said this led to increased stress and shame (Perese & Faleafa, 2000). 

The Perese & Faleafa (2000) study also identified how gambling impacted on personal relationships.  Some respondents said their gambling behaviour meant they were unable to spend time to spend with their children or meet their children’s basic needs.  The gambling also led to conflict between partners and having to use extended family for financial support. 

Whilst Perese & Faleafa’s findings are only relevant for Samoan gamblers, it does show that gambling does have wider personal and social costs.  The possibility remains that there are other social costs within other Pacific communities that should be investigated.

Even though the actual number of problem gamblers is estimated at only 0.4% of the population (Ministry of Health, 2009), the ripple effect of gambling illustrated by Perese & Faleafa (2000) and Schluter et al. (2007) suggests that a broad approach needs to be taken.  It is suggested changes be made to the Gambling Act (2003) to mitigate both the harms experienced by the gambler and the wider community.

One suggestion is for New Zealand’s gambling legislation to reframe gambling as a social hazard like smoking or alcohol (Dyall, 2004).  Another, in response to the correlation between gaming availability, socio-economic status and problem gambling prevalence (Wheeler, Rigby, & Huriwai, 2006), suggests reducing the number and availability of gaming machines (Clarke et al., 2006).  These approaches are currently being addressed.  Under current legislation the Ministry of Health has a responsibility to mitigate the broader social harms within a health context ("The Gambling Act," 2003).  Placing this responsibility with the Ministry of Health acknowledges that for some, gambling is harmful.

The Gambling Act (2003) then addresses machine prevalence by placing limits on the number of machines allowed per venue, and requiring local governments to take a risk management approach to the issuing of gaming licenses. In some districts the legislation has resulted in a sinking lid approach, which stipulates that machine numbers will not increase, but will decrease through natural attrition.  Manukau District Council in particular introduced their sinking lid policy in 2007 (Manukau District Council, 2007).

However these policies do not go far enough to address the over-exposure of Pacific people to the social harms or the risks of problem gambling.  Whilst regulating machine availability might address long-term problem gambling prevalence, and the Ministry of Health will address immediate health needs like treatment, steps need to be taken to alleviate the socio-economic harms that fall beyond the scope of the Ministry’s role.  As indicated by Perese & Faleafa (2000) and Schulter et al. (2007) problem gambling affects more than the individual with the addiction.  To address this, it is proposed that a greater proportion of gambling revenue be redirected to organisations which target the social harms of problem gambling.     

Current legislation requires 37.5% of all non-casino gaming machine profits be distributed to the community("The Gambling Act," 2003).  Regulations have been put in place to ensure transparency of the community grant system (Department of Internal Affairs, 2004).  However there is no guarantee that the communities who provided the profits (i.e. the gamblers) will get the benefits of the community grant scheme.  Recipients of the grants are required to be non profit, community organisations but there is no requirement to target organisations whose activities address the harms of gambling.

The following is a suggested amendment to the Gaming Act (2003) that would address the immediate impact of problem gambling on the community.  Under this amendment at least 50% of all community grants paid by non casino gaming machine profits will be targeted towards activities that minimise social harms or have a positive impact on reducing socio-economic disparities.  The range of activities that could be funded are diverse, from providing building materials to Habitat for Humanity, providing scholarships for at risk youth, to subsidising healthy food in low decile schools.  However each must be beneficial for vulnerable populations, and/or provide opportunities for those in poorer areas to improve their situation.  Increasing these groups access to funding has the potential to increase the scope of their work.  In particular those things they were unable to do because of financial restrictions.  This could mean Habitat for Humanity can build more houses, more scholarships could be offered and more schools could benefit from subsidised food.  Whilst this amendment is not specific to Pacific people, it does address socio-economic barriers that they experience.  The theorised result would be gains for the Pacific community as a whole, not just those affected by problem gambling.       

It must be noted that this policy does raise an ethical question of whether or not community organisations should be funded by a product that is harmful to health. In response an additional clause should be added to the policy amendment.  This clause would stipulate that the Community Grants Scheme be phased out and replaced with full Government funding.  This was successfully done with tobacco in 1994 after the introduction of the ("Smoke Free Environments Act," 1990) which regulated how the tobacco industry sponsored community events.  To meet the additional costs to Government, the amount of tax levied on gaming societies should be raised.  Again this was successfully done with tobacco products, albeit for a different purpose.  Tobacco tax was raised as a disincentive to smokers; however the approach could be transferred to gambling policy.  Technically the Community Grants would still be offset by the increased gaming tax, but delivering it like Smokefree funding reduces the stigma.

Problem gambling has more than just financial implications for the gambler.  The ripple effect of gambling on the wider community suggest steps be taken to minimise these harms.  This is particularly so when those most at risk of developing problem gambling are already vulnerable in our society.  The approach suggested by this essay is to address the impact of gambling in the wider community through the redirection of the Community Grants scheme.  The redirection of grant funding allows those groups whose work directly benefits vulnerable populations to increase the scope of their activity.  This approach is not specific to addressing the ‘gambler’ but it will have positive benefits as a population approach by mitigating the impact of their socio-economic circumstances.  Whilst there are ethical questions about harmful products ‘sponsoring’ community organisations, by structuring the grants like Smokefree funding, these questions can be addressed.      

References

Blakely, T., Tobias, M., Atkinson, J., Yeh, L., & Huang, K. (2007). Tracking Disparity: Trends in ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities in mortality, 1981-2004.

Clarke, D., Tse, S., Abbott, M., Townsend, S., Kingi, P., & Manaia, W. (2006). Key Indicators of the Transition from Social to Problem Gambling. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4.

Gambling (Harm Prevention and Minimisation Regulations) (2004).

Dyall, L. (2004). Gambling as a Social Hazard. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand(21).

The Gambling Act, N.Z., 51 Stat. (2003).

Gambling Venue and Racing Board Venue Policy (2007).

Ministry of Health. (2009). A Focus on Problem Gambling: Results of the 2006/07 New Zealand Health Survey. Wellington.

Perese, L., & Faleafa, M. (2000). The Impact of Gambling on Some Samoan Peoples Lives in Auckland (pp. 90): Advisory Committee, The Compulsive Gambling Society of New Zealand.

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).

Smoke Free Environments Act, N.Z, 108 Stat. (1990).

Wheeler, W., Rigby, J., & Huriwai, T. T. (2006). Pokies and Poverty: Problem Gambling Risk Factor Geography in New Zealand. Health and Place, 12, 86 - 96.