Problem Gambling Geography of New Zealand 2005 › notebook › nbbooks.nsf › 0 ›...

�

Publ�c Health Intell�gence Mon�tor�ng Report No. 7

Problem Gambling Geography of New Zealand 2005

Problem Gambl�ng Geography of New Zealand 2005

��

The author of this report is Kylie Mason, Advisor (Statistics/GeoHealth), Public Health Intelligence, Ministry of Health

–


Citation: Ministry of Health. 2006. Problem Gambling Geography of New Zealand 2005.

Wellington: Ministry of Health.

Published in July 2006 by the Ministry of Health

PO Box 5013, Wellington, New Zealand

ISBN 0-478-29967-2 (Book)

ISBN 0-478-29968-0 (Internet)

HP 4254

This document is available on the Ministry of Health webpage: http://www.moh.govt.nz/problemgambling

��

ForewordGambling opportunities have increased in the past decade, and gambling venues are now widespread throughout the country. Gambling-related harm is an emerging social and health issue.

Public Health Intelligence, the epidemiology group of the Ministry, monitors the Ministry of Health’s problem gambling research programme, which includes monitoring the prevalence and various aspects of problem gambling in New Zealand.

The present report provides critically important information on the geographical context of gambling and problem gambling in New Zealand. In particular, the report looks at where certain types of gambling activities are accessible to the population, and where intervention services (such as face-to-face counselling services) for gambling problems are available. The report presents maps of gambling venues and problem gambling intervention services in each administrative area of District Health Boards and territorial authorities.

The report highlights the need to better understand the relationship between accessibility of gambling opportunities and harmful gambling behaviour.

This report will be useful for problem gambling service providers, as well as District Health Boards and territorial authorities.

Comments on this report are welcomed and should be sent to Public Health Intelligence, Public Health Directorate, Ministry of Health, PO Box 5013, Wellington.

Barry BormanManager (Epidemiologist)Public Health Intelligence


�v

AcknowledgementsKylie Mason (Public Health Intelligence, Ministry of Health) prepared and wrote this report. Dyfed Thomas (Public Health Intelligence, Ministry of Health) carried out additional spatial analysis.

The author gratefully acknowledges valuable input from the peer reviewers: Dr Jason Landon, Shayne Nahu, Dr Niki Stefanogiannis, Dr Paul White, Jenny Skinner, Dr Darren Hunt, Maraea Johns (Ministry of Health), John Markland (Department of Internal Affairs) and Jules Garland (Problem Gambling Foundation).

The author would also like to thank the following people and organisations for providing the data for this report: Krista Ferguson from Gambling Helpline, Terry Huriwai from the Ministry of Health, John Markland and others from the Department of Internal Affairs, Statistics New Zealand, and all the problem gambling treatment providers who supplied information about their locations and services.


v

ContentsForeword ..........................................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iv

Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................vii

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

Background .................................................................................................................. 1

Objectives .................................................................................................................... 3

Data sources and methods ............................................................................................... 4

Data sources ................................................................................................................ 4

Methods ....................................................................................................................... 6

Distribution of gambling venues ....................................................................................... 9

Overview ...................................................................................................................... 9

Non-casino gaming machines ..................................................................................... 12

Casinos ...................................................................................................................... 15

TAB outlets ................................................................................................................. 16

Gambling venues by socioeconomic deprivation decile............................................... 16

Regional analysis of gambling venues and problem gambling services ............................ 19

Analysis by District Health Board ............................................................................... 21

Analysis by territorial authority ................................................................................... 23

Analysis by urban area ................................................................................................ 29

Travel distance analysis .............................................................................................. 34

Discussion and conclusion ............................................................................................. 37

Appendix 1: Locations of problem gambling counselling services .................................... 39

References ...................................................................................................................... 43


v�

F�guresFigure 1: Gambling expenditure in New Zealand by gambling activity, 1992–2005 ....... 9

Figure 2: Map of gambling venues in New Zealand ...................................................... 11

Figure 3: Number of non-casino gaming machines (NCGMs) in New Zealand, 1994–2005 .................................................................................................. 12

Figure 4: Number of non-casino gaming machines (NCGMs) per venue, 31 March 2003 and 30 June 2005 ................................................................. 13

Figure 5: Map of non-casino gaming machine venues, 31 March 2003 and 30 June 2005 ......................................................................................... 14

Figure 6: Distribution of non-casino gaming machines by deprivation decile, as at 31 March 2003 and 30 June 2005 ......................................................... 16

Figure 7: Distribution of TABs by deprivation decile as at 4 January 2005 ..................... 17

Figure 8: Distribution of Maori and Pacific peoples by NZDep2001 decile .................... 17

Figure 9: Map of District Health Boards and territorial authorities in New Zealand ........ 20

Figure 10: Density of non-casino gaming machines (NCGMs) per 10,000 people by District Health Board, as at 30 June 2005 ...................................................... 21

Figure 11: Density of non-casino gaming machines (NCGMs) per 10,000 people by territorial authority, as at 30 June 2005 ......................................................... 24

Figure 12: Map of problem gambling services and distances to these services, October 2005 ............................................................................................... 35

TablesTable 1: Geocoding accuracy levels ............................................................................... 7

Table 2: Main problem gambling mode of gamblers, 2004 .......................................... 10

Table 3: Casino gaming machines in New Zealand, 2005............................................. 15

Table 4: Risk factors for problem gambling by socioeconomic deprivation decile ......... 18

Table 5: Summary of gambling venues and problem gambling services by District Health Board ..................................................................................... 22

Table 6: Problem gambling summary by territorial authority, 2005 ................................. 25

Table 7: Problem gambling summary by main and secondary urban area .................... 30

Table 8: Problem gambling summary by minor urban area ........................................... 32


v��

Execut�ve SummaryThis report describes the geographic distribution of gambling venues and problem gambling counselling services in New Zealand. It provides information to help determine areas that may need further problem gambling counselling services, and examines trends from 2003 to 2005 in both gambling opportunities and problem gambling counselling provision.

The report draws on a variety of sources, including the locations of non-casino gaming machines, Totalisator Agency Board (TAB) outlets, casinos, and problem gambling counselling services, new client data for both face-to-face gambling counselling and the Gambling Helpline, and population data. The analysis was carried out at the levels of District Health Board, territorial authority and urban area.

The analyses show that gambling venues are widespread throughout New Zealand. Since 2003, the number of non-casino gaming machines (NCGMs) and venues has decreased in New Zealand, although more venues now have the maximum number of machines on site than previously. The analyses also found that NCGMs and TABs are far more likely to be found in more deprived areas than less deprived areas. At-risk populations, in particular Maori and Pacific peoples, are also over-represented in these more deprived areas.

Most major cities and towns currently have a permanent problem gambling counselling service. The number of these services has increased since 2003 to 98 permanent counselling services. A further 12 towns also have mobile services run by the Problem Gambling Foundation. Other service providers also provide mobile services that can visit clients’ homes, although these have not been included in this analysis.

However, evidence suggests that problem gambling counselling services may not be easily accessible to people living in some areas of New Zealand, and more detailed investigation into service accessibility in these areas may be required. Further investigation is also recommended into the relationship between the inequalities that are evident in gambling problems and gambling-related harm, and the accessibility of gambling opportunities.


v�� Problem Gambling Geography of New Zealand 2005

�

Introduct�on

BackgroundA multitude of gambling opportunities are widely available in New Zealand. A survey of gambling participation carried out by the Department of Internal Affairs in 2000 found that 87% of New Zealand adults had participated in at least one form of gambling in the past 12 months (Amey 2001). Furthermore, the 2002/03 New Zealand Health Survey showed that 69.4% (95% confidence interval: 68.2–70.6) of New Zealand adults had participated in one of the following forms of gambling in the preceding year: Lotto, Instant Kiwi, non-casino gaming machines (NCGMs), casino games, track or sports betting, Daily Keno, Housie, 0900 gambling and Internet gaming (Ministry of Health in press).

While most people do not experience problems resulting from their gambling, it can cause harm for some people. The Gambling Act 2003, which became law in September 2003, has the purposes of controlling the growth of gambling, and preventing and minimising gambling-related harm, and it clearly identifies problem gambling as a public health issue. Using a public health approach is advantageous, as it provides a broader lens through which to examine gambling-related harm. Section 4 of the Gambling Act 2003 defines gambling-related harm. In this context, harm:

(a) means harm or distress of any kind arising from, caused or exacerbated by, a person’s gambling; and

(b) includes personal, social, or economic harm suffered—

(i) by the person; or

(ii) the person’s spouse, partner, family, whanau, or wider community; or

(iii) in the workplace; or

(iv) by society at large.

Problem gambling is characterised by symptoms such as feeling a loss of control over one’s gambling, being preoccupied by gambling, and lying to others to conceal the extent of involvement in gambling. The 1999 National Prevalence Survey showed that problem gambling affects about 1.3% (0.9%–1.8%) of the New Zealand population aged 18 years and over (Abbott and Volberg 2000). For a variety of reasons, Abbott and Volberg considered their estimates were probably conservative and possibly highly conservative. The 2002/03 New Zealand Health Survey also showed that about 1.2% (1.0%–1.5%) of the New Zealand population aged 15 years and over experienced gambling problems, which represents 32,800 (26,200–39,400) adults (Ministry of Health in press).

Research suggests problem gamblers are not a homogeneous group, and are generally difficult to characterise. However, some risk factors have been identified, and can be grouped into personal, social and environmental factors (Blaszczynski and Nower 2002). Personal factors include psychological and biological factors such as personality traits and motivations. Social factors include demographics such as ethnicity and age, as well as


2

socioeconomic factors such as income and deprivation. Environmental factors include the availability and accessibility of gambling opportunities.

Recent studies in New Zealand showed that problem gambling rates are highest among people living in more socioeconomically deprived areas and Maori and Pacific peoples (Abbott and Volberg 2000; Ministry of Health in press). In terms of environmental factors, electronic gaming machines (particularly non-casino gaming machines (NCGMs)) are the most commonly cited primary source of gambling problems by new problem gambling counselling clients (Ministry of Health 2005b). Furthermore, the 1999 National Prevalence Survey (Abbott and Volberg 2000) found that problem gamblers were more likely to prefer playing NCGMs or betting on horse or dog races than other forms of gambling.

Under the Gambling Act 2003, the Ministry of Health became formally responsible for developing and implementing an integrated problem gambling strategy focused on public health. Since July 2004 the Ministry has funded a range of problem gambling services in New Zealand, including public health programmes and problem gambling intervention services for people seeking assistance for their own or someone else’s gambling problems. Intervention services include face-to-face counselling (treatment) services and telephone helpline services.

Face-to-face counselling services are located in cities and towns throughout New Zealand. The main national providers are the Problem Gambling Foundation and Oasis. Additionally there are some local and regional providers of problem gambling services, many of which also provide mobile services to outlying areas.

Gambling Helpline operates a gambling telephone helpline, which is a free national telephone helpline service for problem gamblers, their families/whanau, and members of the public who are seeking information about problem gambling. Gambling Helpline also runs specialised helplines for Maori, Pacific peoples and youth. In addition, the Problem Gambling Foundation provides a dedicated Hotline for Asian communities.

Examining the geographic distribution of gambling venues and problem gambling service provision is key to determining whether problem gambling service needs are being met throughout New Zealand. The analyses in this report may help to evaluate current service coverage, identify key areas of need, and monitor the situation over time, to ensure service gaps are filled. Analyses of this kind also provide further evidence to suggest associations between availability of gambling opportunities, and inequalities in gambling-related harm.

The geography of problem gambling in New Zealand has previously been investigated in Problem Gambling Geospatial Application (Ministry of Health 2003) and Problem Gambling Geography of New Zealand (Wheeler 2003). In particular, Wheeler (2003) investigated the spatial distribution of NCGMs and problem gambling services in New Zealand, and determined areas needing additional problem gambling intervention services.


�

Object�vesThe current report updates the geography of problem gambling in New Zealand for 2005. It investigates the geographical distribution of gambling venues in New Zealand and identifies areas potentially in need of problem gambling counselling services.

The objectives of this report are to:

• investigate the spatial distribution of gambling venues (NCGMs, casinos and Totalisator Agency Board (TAB) outlets) throughout New Zealand, with respect to known problem gambling risk factors and problem gambling service provision

• determine areas with greater at-risk populations and/or the highest demand for problem gambling services

• examine whether existing problem gambling services or alcohol and other drug treatment centres could fill service gaps for problem gambling treatment

• describe changes since 2003 in gaming machine distribution and problem gambling service provision, by comparing these results with those in Problem Gambling Geography of New Zealand (Wheeler 2003)

• produce maps of District Health Boards (DHBs) and territorial authorities, showing the location of gambling venues and problem gambling service providers.

The first section of this report focuses on the distribution of gambling venues in New Zealand with respect to key risk factors for problem gambling. For the analyses in this report, these gambling venues include all NCGM venues, TABs and casinos, but not lottery outlets. The second part of the report assesses geographical needs, identifying areas of greatest need for problem gambling services and determining whether existing services may help to fill those needs.

The appendices include a list of problem gambling treatment locations, as well as more detailed information on aspects of gambling and problem gambling, at the geographic scales of DHB, territorial authority and urban area. A series of maps, included as part of this report, provide the locations of gambling venues and problem gambling counselling services by DHB and territorial authority.

Aud�enceThis report will interest people involved in preventing and treating problem gambling in New Zealand, especially policy analysts and advisors in the health sector and wider social policy community, problem gambling providers, and territorial authorities. Further information about the Ministry of Health’s strategies for preventing and minimising harm from problem gambling are in: Preventing and Minimising Gambling Harm: Strategic plan 2004–2010 (Ministry of Health 2005a).


�

Data sources and methods

Data sourcesThe key data used in this report were the locations of gambling venues and problem gambling services. Client data came from problem gambling counselling services and the Gambling Helpline.

Gambl�ng venues The Department of Internal Affairs provided a list of the locations of all non-casino gaming machines (NCGMs) in New Zealand as at 30 June 2005 (Department of Internal Affairs 2005c). This data set included the name and address of each venue, the number of gaming machines at each venue, the name of the society that operates the machines, and the territorial authority in which the venue is located. The societies self-report these data, which have not been verified by the Department of Internal Affairs.

Depending on when the NCGMs were registered, venues are generally allowed a maximum of 9 or 18 machines at each location. In special circumstances, for example, when two or more clubs merge, venues are allowed up to 30 machines at each location. One venue in the 30 June 2005 data set reported having 30 gaming machines on site. No NCGM venues were listed as being located on the Chatham Islands, and for this reason the Chatham Islands have not been included in the analysis.

The number of NCGMs by DHB and territorial authority as at 30 June 2005 was compared with the number as at 31 March 2003. This data had been geocoded for Problem Gambling Geography in New Zealand (Wheeler 2003).

The six casinos in New Zealand are in Auckland, Hamilton, Christchurch, Dunedin (one each) and Queenstown (two). The data for the number of gaming machines in these casinos were obtained from the Department of Internal Affairs (Department of Internal Affairs 2005a) and the casinos’ websites.

The locations of TAB outlets owned by the New Zealand Racing Board were taken from the TAB website and were as at 4 January 2005 (TAB 2005). This website listed the addresses of TAB agencies, pub outlets, social outlets and self-service machines in New Zealand. When two types of TAB outlet existed in the same location (for example, a pub outlet and a self-service outlet at the same location), only one was included in the data set. According to this data set, there were 579 TAB outlet locations in New Zealand as at 4 January 2005. Telephone and Internet track betting were not taken into account in this analysis.

Populat�on dataThe analyses in this report were done at several levels: at the national level, and by DHB, territorial authority and urban area. There are 21 DHBs and 73 territorial authorities in New Zealand. Urban areas were separated into three groups, according to standard Statistics New Zealand classifications from the 2001 Census of Population and Dwellings (2001


5

Census). Main urban areas had populations of more than 30,000, with some major cities split into zones. Secondary urban areas generally had populations of 10,000–29,999. Minor urban areas had populations of 3,000–9,999.

Population estimates for 2004/05 were used in the larger areas of DHBs and territorial authorities, and major and secondary urban areas (Statistics New Zealand 2005). Census population data from 2001 was used for the smaller urban areas, meshblocks and census area units. This population data included the usually resident population, for both total population and by ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation level. Statistics New Zealand provided the boundaries for DHBs, territorial authorities, urban areas, census area units and meshblocks.

Socioeconomic deprivation was determined by the New Zealand Index of Deprivation 2001 (NZDep01), which measures an area’s socioeconomic deprivation (Salmond and Crampton 2002). It is reported on a decile scale from 1 (least deprived) to 10 (most deprived). The NZDep01 score is given for small areas (meshblocks or census area units), rather than individuals. It is determined by combining results for nine socioeconomic questions in the 2001 Census.

Problem gambl�ng serv�ce prov�dersAddresses for problem gambling treatment services were obtained from all providers funded by the Ministry of Health. A list of these problem gambling services is in Appendix 1.

The main national providers of problem gambling treatment services are the Problem Gambling Foundation and Oasis. The Ministry of Health also contracts the Problem Gambling Foundation to provide services in specific towns and cities. If a permanent treatment service does not exist in these locations, a mobile service will visit these areas if required. These towns have been included as having a problem gambling service in the following analyses.

In addition, there are several local and regional problem gambling service providers in New Zealand. These have been identified and their services described as accurately as possible. Te Rangihaeata Oranga is planning to move its Hastings clinic to Napier in the near future. However, for this analysis, the clinic has been recorded in its current location. This clinic also provides services as far as Wairoa and Waipukurau.

The analysis has included two clinics opening in early 2006 in Picton (run by Te Rapuora Health) and Nelson (run by Te Kahui Hauora).

The Woodlands Trust runs courses in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. These have not been included in the analyses, as the courses are held only occasionally in various locations in these cities, rather than being permanent face-to-face treatment services.

In addition to the permanent clinics listed, some providers also have mobile services that visit towns and/or clients’ homes. Apart from the towns the Problem Gambling Foundation is contracted to supply treatment services to (which may be mobile services), other mobile services have not been included in the analyses in this report, as the extent of these


�

services was not known. However, it is important that readers consider these mobile services when interpreting the results of the analyses in this report.

A list of the locations of alcohol and other drug treatment services was obtained from the Mental Health Directorate, Ministry of Health. These services are included in the report to represent venues where further problem gambling intervention services could be based. This information also indicates treatment services available in the area in addition to problem gambling services.

Problem gambl�ng serv�ce use Utilisation data from face-to-face counselling services and telephone helplines have been included in the analysis of problem gambling intervention services. Face-to-face counselling data were available from the Ministry of Health for new clients from 31 May 2004 to 31 May 2005. These data included the number of new clients living in each territorial authority.

Gambling Helpline address data were obtained from the Gambling Helpline, and geocoded to urban area, territorial authority and DHB. The data did not identify individuals or the street number of their address. The data used in this report were the average numbers of clients per year for the two-year period from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2005, representing the approximate period since Problem Gambling Geography in New Zealand (Wheeler 2003). This data set included all new callers (both gamblers and significant others, such as family/whanau) to the Gambling Helpline who resided in New Zealand. The address data included the street name, suburb, town or city, and region. It should be noted that before November 2003, address data was entered into the database manually. Gambling Hotline staff took every care when entering the data, but there is no guarantee the data are accurate. Since November 2003, town and city information has been based on selection from a list.

MethodsGeocod�ng For spatial analysis, all address data had to be geographically referenced to a point co-ordinate. This was carried out through the process of ‘geocoding’, using the Environmental Science and Research (ESR) geocoder, which is based on Critchlow’s GeoStan NZ. GeoStan NZ links an address to a physical location, to provide the x and y co-ordinates for that address. Address data that were geocoded included venues of NCGMs, casinos, TABs, problem gambling services, alcohol and other drug treatment centres, and the Gambling Helpline data.

Depending on the quality of the address data, records can be geocoded with varying degrees of accuracy, for example, an exact match or to the nearest street, suburb, town or city. The majority of these geocoding records are exact matches. However, some records may be accurate only to the suburb or town level. Some addresses were modified slightly if they were not able to be geocoded (for example, to correct spelling errors). The geocoded data were verified to be in the correct region by the geocoded region being checked against the


7

original address. Most of the analysis is at a high level (either DHB or territorial authority), so the level of geocoding accuracy was sufficient to ensure accurate placement within these units.

Different data sets had different geocoding accuracy levels. These are summarised in Table 1. All six casinos were geocoded to an exact location. The non-casino gaming machine dataset had 1,801 venues to geocode, the majority of which were geocoded to the exact address. In general, records that were not matched to an exact address did not provide enough information to geocode to a better match. For example, many records did not provide a street number, or they stated ‘Main Road’ or ‘State Highway’ and a town or locality name; these records were generally geocoded to either a suburb or town match.

Table �: Geocod�ng accuracy levels

Geocod�ng accuracy level

Number of records (percentage of total records �n dataset)

Non-cas�no gam�ng

mach�nes (as at �0 June

2005) Number (%)

TABs (as at

� January 2005) Number (%)

Gambl�ng Helpl�ne cl�ents (� July 200�–�0

June 2005) Number (%)

Problem gambl�ng

serv�ces (as at October 2005)

Number (%)

Alcohol and other drug treatment centres (as at

October 2005) Number (%)

Exact 1430 (79.4) 427 (73.7) 0 (0.0) 68 (61.8) 73 (57.0)

Street 325 (18.0) 133 (23.0) 3718 (51.0) 24 (21.8) 45 (35.2)

Suburb 39 (2.2) 7 (1.2) 994 (13.6) 2 (1.8) 5 (3.9)

Town/City 7 (0.4) 12 (2.1) 2334 (32.0) 16 (14.5) 5 (3.9)

None 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 245 (3.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

TOTAL 1801 (100) 579 (100) 7291 (100) 110 (100) 128 (100)

The geocoding results for the NCGMs were based on the street addresses provided in the data set by the Department of Internal Affairs. In a few circumstances, using this street address meant the gaming machine venue was located in a different territorial authority from that identified in the Department of Internal Affairs’ data set. For this reason, results of NCGM numbers in a small number of territorial authorities differ slightly from the numbers provided by the Department of Internal Affairs.

The Gambling Helpline client data were provided without any identifiers or street numbers to protect client confidentiality. This report uses 7,291 records from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2005. From these records, 3,718 were geocoded to street level, 994 to the nearest suburb, and 2,334 to a town or city (Table 1). A total of 245 records were excluded because the caller had not provided address data, representing 3.4% of the records. This is an acceptable level of error, although it may have led to underreported levels of Gambling Helpline use and a small bias in some regions, if these addresses were more likely to be located in certain areas than randomly located throughout the country.

There is also a risk of bias towards the main cities of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, as many Gambling Helpline clients would give only these cities as their addresses, which


�

were then geocoded to the central part of these towns or cities (for example, addresses from the Auckland region without any further address detail were geocoded to Auckland Central). This error most likely contributes to the increased rates of Gambling Helpline use in main centres, but these errors may have less impact when the geographic areas of analysis are large.

The analyses in this report are based on the data sets of these geocoded locations. Every effort has been made to ensure the geocoding results are as accurate as possible. However, in a small number of cases, the geocoded locations of gambling venues and problem gambling counselling services may not reflect precise locations.

Spat�al analys�s Spatial analyses for this report included calculating the travel distance between towns and the nearest problem gambling service. These distances were calculated using the road network, and did not take into account factors such as traffic or topography.


�

D�str�but�on of gambl�ng venuesOverv�ewGambling is widely available in New Zealand, and a large number of people participate in gambling activities. Since the 1990s, gambling expenditure has increased considerably in New Zealand, from $563 million in the year ending 30 June 1992, to $2.027 billion in the year ending 30 June 2005 (Figure 1) (Department of Internal Affairs, 2004, 2006). Non-casino gaming machines (NCGMs) and casinos account for this increase, with approximately $1.027 billion lost on NCGMs in 2005, representing over half of all gambling expenditure in New Zealand in 2005. However, there has been a slight decrease of 0.8% in expenditure on non-casino gaming machines from 2004–2005. Expenditure on lotteries and racing has remained relatively static over the past decade.

F�gure �: Gambl�ng expend�ture �n New Zealand, by gambl�ng act�v�ty, ��2–2005

Source: Department of Internal Affairs 2004, 2006

Note: ‘Expenditure’ refers to the amount lost or spent by players, in actual dollars (non-inflation adjusted) for gambling

operators’ financial year-end (for most gambling operators this is 30 June).

While gambling is generally viewed as a form of entertainment, it can sometimes result in harm for the gambler and the people around them. The main cause of gambling problems cited by the majority of new problem gambling counselling clients is electronic gaming machines (‘pokies’), which are generally available at licensed premises such as pubs, clubs and hotels, and at casinos. Table 2 shows that electronic gaming machines (non-casino and casino) were the main mode of gambling for over 90% of new telephone helpline clients, and for about 88% of new face-to-face counselling clients in 2004 (Ministry of Health 2005b). The other main gambling modes cited by new clients are track betting and table games at casinos. Casino gaming machines are the most common additional mode of gambling problems among new face-to-face counselling clients, while Lotto, Daily Keno or scratch tickets (such as Instant Kiwi) are also a common additional problem gambling mode.

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Expend�ture ($m)

CasinosNon-casino gaming machinesLotteriesRacing

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Year


�0

Table 2: Ma�n problem gambl�ng mode of gamblers, 200�

Gambl�ng act�v�ty

Ma�n problem gambl�ng mode of new cl�ents (%)

Add�t�onal problem gambl�ng mode of new

cl�ents (%)

Telephone helpl�ne

(N=��)

Face-to-face counsell�ng(N=22��)

Face-to-face counsell�ng(N=��0)

Non-casino gaming machines 83.3 79.7 10.9

Casino gaming machines 7.3 8.5 35.9

Track betting 4.2 4.2 9.8

Casino tables 3.5 4.9 5.0

Sports betting 0.5 0.9 4.6

Lotto/Keno/scratch tickets 0.2 0.6 26.5

Housie 0.1 0.1 2.8

Other & multiple gambling activities 0.9 1.2 4.6

Total �00.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Ministry of Health (2005b)

Figure 2 presents the geographic distribution of NCGM venues, casinos and TABs in New Zealand. This map shows the very wide coverage of these gambling venues throughout New Zealand. NCGM venues are the most widespread of these gambling venues (1,801 venues), compared with 579 TAB venues and six casinos.

This report focuses on the geography of the three main sources of gambling harm: NCGMs, casinos (which offer both gaming machines and tables), and TAB outlets (where track betting and sports betting are available). Lottery outlets have not been included in this analysis.


��

F�gure 2: Map of gambl�ng venues �n New Zealand


�2

Non-cas�no gam�ng mach�nesNon-casino gaming machines (NCGMs) are found throughout New Zealand, usually in licensed premises such as pubs, clubs and hotels. Since 1994, there has been a large increase in the number of gaming machines in New Zealand. Figure 3 shows that the number of NCGMs has increased considerably, peaking in 2003. However, the number of machines decreased in 2004 and 2005, and the expenditure on these machines decreased from 2004 to 2005 (Department of Internal Affairs 2006).

F�gure �: Number of non-cas�no gam�ng mach�nes (NCGMs) �n New Zealand, ��–2005

Source: Department of Internal Affairs (2005d)

In June 2005, there were 21,846 NCGMs in New Zealand, a decrease since June 2003. The number of NCGM venues also decreased from 2,121 in March 2003 to 1,801 in June 2005.

Based on the estimated New Zealand population of 4,098,200 in June 2005 (Statistics New Zealand 2005), these results represent one NCGM for every 188 people, or an overall density of 53.3 NCGMs for every 10,000 people.

In general terms, the Gambling Act 2003 limits the number of gaming machines allowed at each NCGM venue. Venues that were granted a licence for gaming machines after 17 October 2001 are allowed a maximum of 9 machines, while those granted a licence before this date are allowed a maximum of 18 machines. In a very narrow set of circumstances, two or more clubs that merge may operate up to 30 machines at one venue. This is the case at one venue.

Figure 4 shows the number of NCGMs at each venue in March 2003 and June 2005. This graph shows that the large majority of venues in 2005 have the maximum number of gaming machines (either 9 or 18). The proportion of NCGM venues with 18 machines increased from 37% of venues in March 2003 to 44% in June 2005. This shows that while the overall

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

01994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

7,7708,831

9,730

11,61912,897

13,812

16,396

19,332

22,113

25,221

22,497 21,846

Number of NCGMs


��

numbers of NCGMs and venues have decreased over recent years, the proportion of venues with the maximum number of machines on site has increased.

F�gure �: Number of non-cas�no gam�ng mach�nes (NCGMs) per venue, �� March 200� and �0 June 2005

Source: Department of Internal Affairs (2005c)

Note: One venue with 30 non-casino gaming machines on site as at 30 June 2005 has not been included.

Figure 5 presents the geographic distribution of NCGM venues as at 31 March 2003 and 30 June 2005. This map shows that some venues that had gaming machines on site in 2003 no longer had any machines on site in 2005. However, there has not been a considerable change in the distribution of non-casino gaming machine venues since 2003.

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Number of NCGMs per venue

Number of venues

31 March 200330 June 2005


��

F�gure 5: Map of non-cas�no gam�ng mach�ne venues, �� March 200� and �0 June 2005


�5

Cas�nosThere are six casinos in New Zealand. This number is limited by the Gambling Act 2003, which prohibits the granting of any new licences for casinos in New Zealand. The Gambling Act 2003 also sets the maximum number of machines allowed at each of the six casinos; each casino is operating at its full capacity. Overall, the casinos have 2,824 gaming machines. These machines accounted for 11.4% of the 24,670 electronic gaming machines in New Zealand as at 30 June 2005.

Casinos represent a very large number of gambling opportunities concentrated in a single location, and are generally visited by large numbers of people from outside the casino’s immediate area. Thus, casinos need to be viewed in the context of the wider community at risk, for example at the geographic scales of urban/rural centre, territorial authority and DHB levels. For this reason, the report has generally distinguished between gaming machines located in casinos and NCGMs.

Table 3 lists the six casinos and the number of gaming machines at each. Auckland Sky City Casino has the largest number of gaming machines, so the territorial authority of Auckland City has a relatively high density of casino gaming machines per person. This result should be interpreted cautiously, as the Sky City Casino is visited by not only the population of Auckland City, but the much broader Auckland region (including several territorial authorities), as well as visitors to the city. The Queenstown-Lakes District has the highest density of casino gaming machines, with 67.2 machines per 10,000 people.

Table �: Cas�no gam�ng mach�nes �n New Zealand, 2005

Cas�no

Number of cas�no gam�ng

mach�nes C�ty Terr�tor�al author�ty

Est�mated terr�tor�al author�ty

populat�on

Cas�no gam�ng

mach�nes �n terr�tor�al

author�ty(per �0,000 populat�on)

Sky City Casino 1,647 Auckland Auckland City 425,400 38.7

Riverside Casino 339 Hamilton Hamilton City 131,400 25.8

Christchurch Casino 500 Christchurch Christchurch City 347,600 14.4

Dunedin Casino 180 Dunedin Dunedin City 122,400 14.7

Sky Alpine Casino 84Queenstown Queenstown-Lakes District 23,500 67.2

Wharf Casino 74

Source: Department of Internal Affairs (2005a)

TAB outletsTAB outlets, owned by the New Zealand Racing Board, are available throughout New Zealand. There were 579 TAB outlets in New Zealand as at 4 January 2005 (TAB 2005).


��

Gambl�ng venues by soc�oeconom�c depr�vat�on dec�leAnalysis shows that gambling venues are more likely to be located in more socioeconomically deprived areas. Figure 6 presents the total number of NCGMs by NZDep2001 decile (at census area unit level for comparability reasons), for March 2003 and June 2005. This graph shows that approximately 53% of all NCGMs are located in deciles 8–10 in both March 2003 and June 2005.

F�gure �: D�str�but�on of non-cas�no gam�ng mach�nes by depr�vat�on dec�le, as at �� March 200� and �0 June 2005

Source: Department of Internal Affairs (2005c)

By comparison, if NCGMs were distributed evenly with population throughout New Zealand, only 30% would be in deciles 8–10. Over five times as many NCGMs are in the two most deprived deciles (deciles 9 and 10) than in the two least deprived deciles (deciles 1 and 2). This distribution of NCGMs by deprivation has not changed considerably since 2003.

Figure 7 shows that TABs are also more likely to be in areas of higher deprivation. About half of all TABs are in the three most deprived deciles (deciles 8–10). The distribution of TABs, in relation to socioeconomic deprivation, is very similar to that of NCGMs.

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of non-cas�nogam�ng mach�nes

March 2003June 2005

NZDep0� dec�le (by census area un�t)(�=least depr�ved, �0=most depr�ved)


�7

F�gure 7: D�str�but�on of TABs by depr�vat�on dec�le as at � January 2005

Source: TAB (2005).

In New Zealand, socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity are closely related, with Maori and Pacific peoples being more likely to live in more deprived areas. Figure 8 shows the distribution of Maori and Pacific peoples by NZDep01 decile. While the total population is spread evenly across the deciles, Maori and Pacific peoples are disproportionately more likely to live in more deprived areas.

F�gure �: D�str�but�on of Maor� and Pac�fic peoples by NZDep200� dec�le

120

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NZDep0� dec�le (by meshblock)(�= least depr�ved, �0= most depr�ved)

Number of TAB outlets

1714

2531

52

62

88

105 107

78

Source: 2001 Census

45.0

40.0

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NZDep0� dec�le (by meshblock)(�=least depr�ved, �0=most depr�ved)

Percentage ofpopulat�on (%)

MaoriPacific peoplesNZ Population


��

Studies in New Zealand have found that ethnicity and deprivation are significant risk factors for problem gambling. The 1999 National Prevalence Survey found that significant risk factors for current problem gambling included being of Maori or Pacific ethnicity (Abbott and Volberg 2000). In addition, the 2002/03 New Zealand Health Survey showed that gambling problems were experienced by a higher proportion of people who lived in more deprived areas, Maori and Pacific peoples compared with the total population (Ministry of Health in press). In particular, the survey identified that gambling problems were experienced by 3.3% (2.1–4.4) of Maori and 3.8% (1.9–5.7) of Pacific peoples compared with 0.8% (0.6–1.1) of Europeans/Others. Furthermore, the rate of problem gambling in the two most deprived deciles (NZDep01 deciles 9–10) was 1.9% (1.3–2.4) compared with 0.8% (0.3–1.3) in the two least deprived deciles (NZDep01 deciles 1–2).

Regression analysis of the 2002/03 New Zealand Health Survey suggested that ethnicity is a more significant risk factor than socioeconomic deprivation for problem gambling (Ministry of Health in press). However, the correlation between these two variables means that it is difficult to interpret these results.

Table 4 summarises the risk factors for problem gambling which this report focuses on, namely socioeconomic deprivation, ethnicity, and availability of gambling opportunities. These results suggest that gambling venues are more likely to be in areas with more socioeconomically disadvantaged people, so gambling venues are more accessible to these people. Research from the Gold Coast of Australia has suggested that gambling behaviour at the community level is supply driven, specifically that the amount of gambling activity in an area is associated with the density of gambling opportunities in that area (Marshall 2005). This indicates that the relationship between local-level accessibility to gambling venues and problem gambling in at-risk groups in New Zealand is one that warrants further investigation, and may be critical in reducing inequalities evident in gambling-related harm.

Table �: R�sk factors for problem gambl�ng by soc�oeconom�c depr�vat�on dec�le

NZDep200� dec�le

(meshblock)

Populat�on (200�)

(%)

Maor�(200�)

(%)

Pac�fic peoples (200�)

(%)

NCGMs(as at

�0 June 2005) (%)

NCGM venues(as at

�0 June 2005) (%)

TABs (as at

� January 2005)

(%)

1 10.3 3.0 1.7 2.6 3.3 2.9

2 10.3 4.0 2.4 2.7 3.1 2.4

3 10.3 4.9 3.1 3.7 4.8 4.3

4 10.0 5.8 3.8 6.7 7.5 5.4

5 10.0 7.1 4.9 8.0 8.7 9.0

6 9.8 8.5 6.3 10.8 10.9 10.7

7 9.7 10.5 8.2 14.5 14.7 15.2

8 9.8 13.1 12.2 17.4 16.7 18.1

9 9.9 17.7 20.1 19.8 18.2 18.5

10 9.9 25.5 37.3 13.9 12.2 13.5

Total number �,7��,�2� 52�,52� 2��,5�� 2�,�� ,�0� 57�

Source: 2001 Census, Department of Internal Affairs (2005c), TAB (2005)


��

Reg�onal analys�s of gambl�ng venues and problem gambl�ng serv�cesThis section describes the geographic distribution of gambling venues and current problem gambling intervention services in New Zealand, to identify the key geographic regions in need of problem gambling counselling services. Areas in need of problem gambling counselling services have:

• easy access to gambling venues (NCGMs, casinos or TABs)

• no or limited availability to contracted problem gambling counselling services.

Additional criteria may include areas with:

• a high level of socioeconomic deprivation

• a large percentage of Maori or Pacific peoples

• a high use of the Gambling Helpline and low use of face-to-face counselling services

• a reasonably sized population.

When interpreting the results of these analyses, it is more useful to look at service utilisation rates rather than the total number of clients, as absolute numbers will be biased towards centres with large populations. It is important to note that small population numbers may lead to unstable rates, which may not be accurate indicators of local circumstances. At the same time, large population numbers or large geographic areas, such as DHBs or territorial authorities, may obscure problem areas. It may be useful to look at several factors, including gambling accessibility and current service utilisation, to identify local problem gambling risk.

Nationally, this analysis found that the number of problem gambling services has increased from 85 problem gambling service access points (permanent and mobile services) in March 2003 to 110 in October 2005. These service access points comprise 98 permanent counselling services, as well as mobile services to a further 12 towns, which the Problem Gambling Foundation is contracted to provide. Many other providers are now also offering mobile services, which can visit clients’ houses or smaller towns where permanent problem gambling services are not located. However, these mobile service coverage areas have not been included in the analysis in this report. A list of the problem gambling counselling services as at October 2005 that were used in this analysis is available in Appendix 1.

Accessibility to gambling venues and problem gambling treatment services is investigated in the following section at the geographic levels of DHB, territorial authority and urban area. Figure 9 presents a map of DHBs and territorial authorities in New Zealand, which provides the context for the following sections.


20

F�gure �: Map of D�str�ct Health Boards and terr�tor�al author�t�es �n New Zealand


2�

Analys�s by D�str�ct Health Board District Health Boards (DHBs) are responsible for the health and wellbeing of their population, and provide a range of health services in their region. Analysis by DHB gives a broad overview of the need and provision of services in each region.

Figure 10 presents the density of non-casino gaming machines (NCGMs) per 10,000 people by DHB. This comparison shows that the density of NCGMs is reasonably similar across most DHBs. The exceptions include Waitemata, Auckland and Counties Manukau DHBs, which have a lower density of NCGMs than other DHBs. By comparison, West Coast DHB has a relatively high density of NCGMs. Although West Coast DHB has a small population, the density of NCGMs in this DHB is very high compared with other DHBs with small populations (eg, Tairawhiti, Wairarapa and South Canterbury).

F�gure �0: Dens�ty of non-cas�no gam�ng mach�nes (NCGMs) per �0,000 people by D�str�ct Health Board, as at �0 June 2005

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

D�str�ct Health Board

Non-cas�no gam�ng mach�ne dens�ty(per �0,000 people) (June 2005)

Nor

thla

nd

Wai

tem

ata

Auc

klan

d

Cou

ntie

s M

anuk

au

Wai

kato

Lake

s

Bay

of P

lent

y

Tair

awh

iti

Tara

naki

Haw

ke’s

Bay

Wh

anga

nui

Mid

Cen

tral

Hut

t Val

ley

Cap

ital

and

Coa

st

Wai

rara

pa

Nel

son

Mar

lbor

ough

Wes

t Coa

st

Can

terb

ury

Sou

th C

ante

rbur

y

Ota

go

Sou

thla

nd

62.7

31.9

43.9

37.5

62.7

70.2

61.4

56.3

62.464.8

73.5

62.6

51.749.7

58.760.4

104.2

58.8

74.4

67.2

62.6

National average (53.5 gamingmachines per 10,000 people)

Source: Department of Internal Affairs (2005c), Ministry of Health


22

Table 5 summarises gambling opportunities and problem gambling services by DHB. This table shows that many DHBs have seen a decrease in the number of NCGMs since 2003. The exceptions are Waikato, Tairawhiti, MidCentral, Wairarapa, Nelson-Marlborough, Otago and Southland DHBs. The number of gambling venues (NCGM venues, casinos and TABs) is particularly high in Canterbury DHB, even when taking into account the population size. Further information and maps for DHBs are available in Appendices 2 and 5.

Table 5: Summary of gambl�ng venues and problem gambl�ng serv�ces by D�str�ct Health Board

D�str�ct Health Board

Est�mated populat�on 200�–05

Number of

gambl�ng venues

Number of TABs

(Jan 2005)

Number of NCGM venues (June 2005)

Number of

NCGMs (June 2005)

Change �n number

of NCGMs March 200� – June

2005 (%)

Number of problem

gambl�ng serv�ce

locat�ons �

Gambl�ng Helpl�ne new

cl�ents per �0,000 people

per year (200�–2005)

(n=70��)

Northland 148,248 108 25 83 930 -1.0 6 5.5

Waitemata 488,720 152 31 121 1,557 -1.8 7 6.8

Auckland 424,135 197 52 144 1,862 -10.0 7 13.4

Counties Manukau 430,910 155 42 113 1,614 -4.0 7 7.4

Waikato 339,335 214 49 164 2,128 2.9 19 7.3

Lakes 102,225 69 13 56 718 -10.3 4 8.9

Bay of Plenty 194,630 119 28 91 1,195 -1.9 6 8.7

Tairawhiti 44,908 21 4 17 253 0.4 3 6.8

Taranaki 105,350 85 20 65 657 -11.2 5 6.7

Hawke’s Bay 150,175 98 25 73 973 -6.4 1 5.9

Whanganui 63,713 52 12 40 468 -3.7 2 8.2

MidCentral 162,885 114 34 80 1,019 2.6 6 7.2

Hutt Valley 138,475 82 28 54 716 -13.7 3 9.0

Capital and Coast 272,020 133 35 98 1,352 -5.5 7 11.9

Wairarapa 39,352 29 10 19 231 4.5 3 6.9

Nelson Marlborough 133,405 86 16 70 806 10.0 5 7.1

West Coast 30,605 56 6 50 319 -1.2 2 6.4

Canterbury 465,375 298 83 214 2,738 -0.8 8 10.6

South Canterbury 53,775 57 13 44 400 -0.5 3 7.6

Otago 183,320 154 25 128 1,232 5.3 3 7.9

Southland 108,267 107 28 77 678 0.4 3 8.1

Total �,07�,�2� 2,�� 57� �,�0� 2�,�� -2.5 ��0 �.�

Source: Ministry of Health, TAB (2005), Department of Internal Affairs (2005c), Wheeler (2003), Gambling Helpline.1 This includes all permanent problem gambling face-to-face counselling services, and any towns where mobile services

provided by the Problem Gambling Foundation are available. It does not take into account mobile services provided by other problem gambling service providers. A list of all problem gambling counselling services included in this analysis is in Appendix 1.


2�

Table 5 shows that every DHB has at least one problem gambling counselling service. Waikato DHB has the largest number of locations of face-to-face problem gambling counselling services, which may be due to its large geographic area. Of note, there is only one problem gambling counselling service in Hawke’s Bay DHB to service about 150,000 people over a broad area covering Napier, Hastings, Waipukurau and Wairoa. In comparison, other DHBs with similar populations have more counselling services, for example, there are six counselling services in MidCentral DHB (population 162,885), three in Hutt Valley DHB (population 138,475) and five in Nelson Marlborough DHB (population 133,405).

These results also show that use of the Gambling Helpline is fairly similar across DHBs. However, it is used most (by population density) in Auckland, Capital and Coast and Canterbury DHBs. This may be explained by the bias towards these cities due to lack of address detail in the client records. The use of the Gambling Helpline is somewhat lower per population in Northland, Hawke’s Bay and West Coast DHBs, compared with the national average.

It is difficult to draw any conclusions from this broad level of analysis, as any small areas of high-density problem gambling counselling use or gambling opportunities may be hidden. It is therefore useful to analyse the data at the level of territorial authority.

Analys�s by terr�tor�al author�tyTerritorial authorities are responsible for granting consents for gaming machines in their district; a consent must be granted before the Department of Internal Affairs will consider an application for a group to begin operating gaming machines at a new venue or an application to increase the number of machines operating at an existing venue. The Gambling Act 2003 required territorial authorities to develop a NCGM (Class 4) venue policy for their district. It is at territorial authority level that much problem gambling service utilisation information is disseminated.

Figure 11 presents the density of NCGMs per 10,000 people by territorial authority. This graph shows a large amount of variation in the density of NCGMs. Overall the average density of NCGMs is 53.3 machines per 10,000 people. In comparison, there are particularly high densities in Kaikoura District (152.4 NCGMs per 10,000 people), Thames-Coromandel District (122.8), Mackenzie District (118.0), Kawerau District (110.3), Grey District (109.9), Buller District (109.7) and Central Otago District (106.0).

In contrast, some territorial authorities have much lower densities of NCGMs, including three Auckland city councils – Waitakere City (24.9 NCGMs per 10,000 people), North Shore City (32.0) and Manukau City (32.7) – as well as Selwyn District (36.1).

Table 6 summarises problem gambling counselling services and their use by territorial authority for 2005. Further information on gambling opportunities and problem gambling services by territorial authority is in Appendix 3, including information on the numbers of NCGMs, TABs and casinos, as well as the change in NCGM numbers from 2003 to 2005. Maps for territorial authorities are available in Appendix 6.


2�

F�gure ��: Dens�ty of non-cas�no gam�ng mach�nes (NCGMs) per �0,000 people by terr�tor�al author�ty, as at �0 June 2005

Far North DistrictWhangarei District

Kaipara DistrictRodney District

North Shore CityWaitakere CityAuckland CityManukau City

Papakura DistrictFranklin District

Thames-Coromandel DistrictHauraki DistrictWaikato District

Matamata-Piako DistrictHamilton City

Waipa DistrictOtorohanga District

South Waikato DistrictWaitomo District

Taupo DistrictWestern Bay of Plenty District

Tauranga DistrictRotorua District

Whakatane DistrictKawerau District

Opotiki DistrictGisborne District

Wairoa DistrictHastings District

Napier CityCentral Hawkes Bay District

New Plymouth DistrictStratford District

South Taranaki DistrictRuapehu District

Wanganui DistrictRangitikei DistrictManawatu District

Palmerston North CityTararua District

Horowhenua DistrictKapiti Coast District

Porirua CityUpper Hutt CityLower Hutt CityWellington City

Masterton DistrictCarterton District

South Wairarapa DistrictTasman District

Nelson CityMarlborough District

Kaikoura DistrictBuller District

Grey DistrictWestland District

Hurunui DistrictWaimakariri District

Christchurch CityBanks Peninsula District

Selwyn DistrictAshburton District

Timaru DistrictMackenzie District

Waimate DistrictWaitaki District

Central Otago DistrictQueenstown-Lakes District

Dunedin CityClutha District

Southland DistrictGore District

Invercargill City

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0

49.965.4

44.932.0

24.943.8

32.752.451.7

122.8102.1

47.365.3

46.7

43.379.4

91.671.7

77.7

58.0

40.061.4

70.3

110.368.2

85.6

69.9

74.0

56.6

59.1

65.459.8

67.467.8

100.466.1

43.560.1

68.8

77.4

74.848.1

46.142.5

52.452.8

50.466.1

63.0

55.2

55.977.3

152.4109.7109.9

88.971.9

62.536.1

54.457.9

96.1

74.4118.0

51.367.0

106.051.5

65.750.0

61.465.6

67.3

Territorial authority NCGM density per 10,000 population


25

Table �: Problem gambl�ng summary by terr�tor�al author�ty

Terr�tor�al author�ty

Est�mated populat�on

(June 2005)

Problem gambl�ng

face-to-face counsell�ng

serv�ces (2005)�

New problem

gambl�ng face-to-face counsell�ng cl�ents per

�0,000 people

(May 200� –May 2005)

New Gambl�ng Helpl�ne

cl�ents, per �0,000

people per year

(June 200� –June 2005)

Maor� (200�)

(%)

Pac�fic (200�)

(%)

Populat�on l�v�ng �n depr�ved

meshblocks (NZDep �-�0) (200�)

(%)

Far North District 57,800 3 5.5 5.5 39.8 2.4 66.7

Whangarei District 72,800 2 8.9 6.4 22.5 2.0 36.9

Kaipara District 18,050 1 3.3* 1.4* 20.8 1.8 37.1

Rodney District 89,100 0 2.1* 5.3 8.4 1.7 8.6

North Shore City 212,200 3 6.1 6.5 6.5 3.2 4.8

Waitakere City 191,900 4 3.7 7.6 12.7 13.8 33.6

Auckland City 425,400 7 5.4 13.4 7.9 12.9 30.2

Manukau City 332,900 6 8.1 7.4 15.6 25.5 49.3

Papakura District 43,700 1 5.3 10.3 23.2 7.6 43.4

Franklin District 57,400 0 4.9 4.9 14.9 2.8 18.3

Thames-Coromandel District 26,700 5 – 6.2 14.2 1.3 35.1

Hauraki District 16,750 2 – 5.7* 18.2 1.5 46.5

Waikato District 42,500 0 3.1* 5.8 25.8 2.0 39.8

Matamata-Piako District 30,300 3 – 5.6 12.8 1.0 18.8

Hamilton City 131,400 4 12.6 9.1 18.6 3.4 37.9

Waipa District 42,100 0 – 7.1 14.8 1.6 14.6

Otorohanga District 9,460 0 – 4.2* 27.3 1.2 29.7

South Waikato District 22,800 3 – 8.6 29.2 12.2 54.9

Waitomo District 9,610 1 – 4.7* 37.4 1.8 41.6

Taupo District 33,900 2 4.1* 6.0 27.9 2.7 39.7

Western Bay of Plenty District 42,200 2 6.4 5.6 16.7 1.4 23.2

Tauranga District 103,800 2 5.4 11.1 15.6 1.6 30.5

Rotorua District 67,600 2 9.9 10.4 33.5 3.8 45.6

Whakatane District 33,900 1 4.1* 6.5 40.2 1.9 51.0

Kawerau District 6,620 0 — 8.3* 56.0 3.6 86.7

Opotiki District 9,530 1 — 3.1* 54.4 2.2 72.5

Gisborne District 44,700 3 8.3 6.8 44.0 2.6 59.2

Wairoa District 8,410 0 7.1* — 55.3 1.4 72.8

Hastings District 71,400 1 8.5 5.5 22.7 4.8 39.0


2�



(June 2005)

Problem gambl�ng

face-to-face counsell�ng

serv�ces (2005) �

New problem

gambl�ng face-to-face counsell�ng cl�ents per

�0,000 people

(May 200� –May 2005)



people per year

(June 200� –June 2005)

Maor� (200�)

(%)

Pac�fic (200�)

(%)


meshblocks (NZDep �-�0) (200�)

(%)

Napier City 56,400 0 6.9 7.4 16.9 2.1 33.6

Central Hawke’s Bay District 13,150 0 11.4* 3.8* 21.0 1.9 23.1

New Plymouth District 69,200 2 2.9 7.7 12.8 1.2 29.5

Stratford District 8,610 1 — 5.2* 9.2 0.5 27.3

South Taranaki District 27,300 2 0 4.9 19.1 1.0 30.5

Ruapehu District 13,150 1 0 4.2* 37.8 1.9 49.5

Wanganui District 43,300 1 6.7 10.4 19.8 2.1 49.3

Rangitikei District 14,600 1 0 3.1* 22.8 1.2 32.1

Manawatu District 28,300 1 0 5.3 12.3 1.3 22.6

Palmerston North City 78,400 2 6.6 8.4 13.1 3.0 25.5

Tararua District 17,600 0 0 5.4* 17.5 1.1 29.8

Horowhenua District 30,500 2 0 6.2 19.5 3.1 54.4

Kapiti Coast District 47,000 2 3.2* 5.1 11.4 1.8 18.2

Porirua City 50,500 3 5.9 8.2 19.8 25.8 49.9

Upper Hutt City 37,900 1 4.2* 9.4 12.7 3.9 15.1

Lower Hutt City 100,500 2 7.1 8.8 15.7 9.1 31.5

Wellington City 185,100 3 7.6 14.3 7.2 5.1 12.5

Masterton District 23,300 2 4.3* 7.1 16.1 2.5 30.6

Carterton District 7,160 0 0 5.6* 10.2 1.6 14.9

South Wairarapa District 8,800 1 0 7.4* 12.3 1.5 17.7

Tasman District 46,600 0 3.6* 4.4 6.8 0.6 12.8

Nelson City 45,700 2 14.4 12.9 7.7 1.4 24.7

Marlborough District 42,700 3 — 3.6 9.9 1.0 15.4

Kaikoura District 3,610 1 — 6.9* 14.0 0.3 9.0

Buller District 9,570 1 — 3.7* 8.1 0.6 55.9

Grey District 13,100 1 3.8* 10.3 7.2 0.7 33.3

Westland District 7,870 0 — 3.2* 10.8 0.7 20.6

Hurunui District 10,850 0 0 3.2* 5.0 0.3 9.1

Waimakariri District 42,100 2 4.5* 4.5 6.6 0.5 6.5

Table �: Problem gambl�ng summary by terr�tor�al author�ty (cont�nued)


27

Table �: Problem gambl�ng summary by terr�tor�al author�ty (cont�nued)



(June 2005)

Problem gambl�ng

counsell�ng serv�ces (2005) �

New problem gambl�ng

face-to-face counsell�ng cl�ents per

�0,000 people

(May 200� –May 2005



people per year

(June 200� –June 2005)

Maor� (200�)

(%)

Pac�fic (200�)

(%)


meshblocks (NZDep

�–�0) (200�) (%)

Christchurch City 347,600 3 12.6 12.5 6.9 2.4 24.5

Banks Peninsula District 8,430 0 28.5 3.6* 7.5 0.7 1.3

Selwyn District 31,600 0 5.1* 4.3 5.8 0.8 0.0

Ashburton District 26,900 2 3.7* 6.5 4.7 0.5 6.0

Timaru District 43,000 3 6.3 8.7 5.6 0.7 21.1

Mackenzie District 3,730 0 — — 5.5 0.3 6.1

Waimate District 7,020 0 — 3.6* 4.2 0.5 16.8

Waitaki District 19,850 1 3.5* 5.5 4.6 0.6 15.4

Central Otago District 15,100 0 — 7.3 6.5 0.4 6.4

Queenstown-Lakes District 23,500 2 5.5* 6.8 5.4 0.6 1.7

Dunedin City 122,400 2 7.8 9.4 5.7 2.0 28.9

Clutha District 17,200 0 — 3.2* 7.6 0.5 12.1

Southland District 29,300 0 — 3.4 8.4 0.4 10.2

Gore District 12,350 0 0 5.7* 9.7 0.6 16.2

Invercargill City 51,300 1 4.1 11.4 12.8 2.1 34.0

TOTAL �,0�7,0�0 ��0 �.5 �.� ��.� �.2 2�.�

Source: Ministry of Health, Gambling Helpline, 2001 Census

1 The number of problem gambling face-to-face counselling services includes all permanent counselling services, and

any towns, where mobile services provided by the Problem Gambling Foundation are available. It does not include other

mobile services which may provide services to the region. A list of all problem gambling counselling services included in

this analysis is in Appendix 1.

— These rates are based on a total number of new clients in the specified time period of less than 5 people. For this

reason, these rates are not reliable, and have been suppressed.

* These rates are based on a total number of new clients in the specified time period of between 5 and 20 people. These

rates are likely to be imprecise and should be interpreted cautiously.

These results show that the highest use per population of face-to-face counselling for gambling problems was in Banks Peninsula, Hamilton City, Christchurch City, Nelson City and Central Hawke’s Bay. Banks Peninsula had a very high use of problem gambling face-to-face counselling services (28.5 new clients per 10,000 people) compared with the


2�

population average (8.5). The Gambling Helpline was used most in Wellington City, Auckland City, Nelson City and Christchurch City. Again, this may reflect the bias towards the large centres due to incomplete address data.

Some territorial authorities do not have a problem gambling service located within their boundary. This may indicate a need for services in these areas, although this analysis does not include mobile services other than those provided by the Problem Gambling Foundation. Deciding the territorial authorities most in need of problem gambling services is a subjective process, drawing on population size, at-risk population size, use of problem gambling services and gambling opportunities available. The following results must be interpreted in the context of existing problem gambling service provision.

In terms of population, the largest territorial authorities without a problem gambling service located within their boundary are Rodney District (population 89,100), Franklin District (57,400), Tasman District (46,600), Waikato District (42,500) and Waipa District (42,100). Napier City and Hastings are serviced by one problem gambling service, which was located in Hastings as at October 2005, but will be shifting to Napier.

Some territorial authorities have a large proportion of their population in at-risk groups for problem gambling, although their total population may not be large. Kawerau, Wairoa and Waikato Districts are examples of these.

Kawerau District (population 6,620) has 86.7% of its population living in deprived areas. It has one TAB and five NCGM venues, with a total of 73 machines. This represents a high density of NCGMs per population (110.3 machines per 10,000 people), although this is based on low numbers. There was moderate use of Gambling Helpline (8.3 new clients per 10,000 people per year) in this territorial authority.

Wairoa District (population 8,410) has 72.8% of its population living in deprived areas. It has two TABs and six NCGM venues, which have a total of 72 machines. This territorial authority is serviced by the Napier/Hastings problem gambling service, and has a moderate use of this face-to-face counselling service (7.1 new clients per 10,000 people per year).

Waikato District (population 42,500) has a higher than average proportion of people living in more deprived areas (39.8%). It has five TABs and 18 NCGM venues, with a total of 201 machines, although the density of NCGMs per population is relatively low (47.3 machines per 10,000 people).

Additionally, some territorial authorities had very low numbers of new clients who accessed face-to-face problem gambling counselling services in 2004/2005. Among those territorial authorities, some had no problem gambling service located within their boundary, such as Waipa District, Tararua District, Carterton District, Hurunui District, and Gore District. These territorial authorities should be further investigated to ensure the accessibility of problem gambling services in these areas; these services may include mobile services from nearby territorial authorities. Other territorial authorities also had very low numbers of new problem gambling counselling clients, despite having problem gambling services. These included Matamata–Piako District, South Taranaki District, Ruapehu District, Rangitikei


2�

District, Manawatu District, South Wairarapa District, Horowhenua District, and Marlborough District. However, it is not known whether the services in these districts were available in 2004/2005, when the client data were recorded.

The low numbers of new counselling clients in these regions may be due to services not being accessible in the region, people not coming forward to use the services, or low numbers of people needing to use the service. Some regions identified above may benefit from additional counselling services or the further development of public health programmes to raise awareness of problem gambling and the services available.

These results reveal more variation in gambling opportunities and problem gambling service provision than the analysis by DHB. To identify more specific areas that may need problem gambling counselling services, analysis can also be undertaken at the level of urban area.

Analys�s by urban areaCarrying out analysis at the level of urban area is useful as it reflects the population distribution better than analysis using administrative boundaries. The following analysis used Statistic New Zealand classification of urban areas, which divides areas into three types of urban area, based on the 2001 Census. Main urban areas are large urban areas with a minimum population of 30,000, with some large cities divided into several zones. Secondary urban areas have populations of 10,000–29,999 and minor urban areas have populations of 1,000–9,999.

Analyses of gambling opportunities and problem gambling treatment services were carried out for main and secondary urban areas (Table 7) and minor urban areas with populations of about 3,000–9,999 people (Table 8). These tables also include a list of the territorial authorities that each urban area lies within. Summary data on gambling and problem gambling for urban areas with populations of at least 1,000 people are also available in Appendix 4. In this analysis, it is important to remember that small populations may cause unstable rates.

These results show that NCGMs and TABs are available in most cities and towns in New Zealand. The density of NCGMs is similar across many urban areas. However, there is a particularly high density of NCGMs in Greymouth, Te Awamutu and Whakatane. The Coromandel region has a large number of NCGMs, particularly in the towns of Thames, Whangamata and Paeroa. These areas also have a high proportion of residents living in more deprived areas.

Problem gambling counselling services are located in most main and secondary urban areas, except Cambridge and Te Awamutu (which are both part of the Hamilton urban area), Pukekohe and Gore. These areas do not appear to have a higher than average at-risk population. As mentioned previously, Napier and Hastings are serviced by one problem gambling service provider. Permanent problem gambling counselling services are available in many of the smaller urban and rural centres, while mobile services in some regions can also visit outlying areas if required.


�0

Table 7: Problem gambl�ng summary by ma�n and secondary urban area

Urb

an a

rea

Est�m

ated

po

pula

t�on

(June

200

5)

Prob

lem

ga

mbl

�ng

coun

sell�

ng

serv

�ces

�

New

Gam

bl�n

g H

elpl

�ne

cl�e

nts

per

�0,0

00 p

eopl

e pe

r yea

r (Ju

ne 2

00�–

June

200

5)TA

Bs

NCG

M

venu

es

(�0

June

20

05)

NCG

M

dens

�ty

per �

0,00

0 pe

ople

(�

0 Ju

ne

2005

)

Mao

r�

(200

�)

(%)

Pac�

fic

(200

�)

(%)

Popu

lat�o

n �n

dep

r�ve

d m

eshb

lock

s (N

ZDep

�–�

0)

(200

�) (%

)Te

rr�to

r�al a

utho

r�ty

Ma�

n ur

ban

area

s

Wha

ngar

ei48

,600

28.

79

2161

.126

.12.

347

.5W

hang

arei

Dis

tric

t

Nor

ther

n A

uckl

and

Zone

254,

000

36.

517

6635

.06.

52.

95.

3N

orth

Sho

re C

ity;

Rod

ney

Dis

tric

t

Wes

tern

Auc

klan

d Zo

ne19

7,70

04

7.6

1144

27.5

12.5

13.5

32.6

Wai

take

re C

ity;

Rod

ney

Dis

tric

t

Cent

ral A

uckl

and

Zone

415,

900

613

.651

140

43.9

7.8

13.2

29.9

Auc

klan

d Ci

ty

Sou

ther

n A

uckl

and

Zone

374,

000

87.

731

9335

.216

.623

.448

.8M

anuk

au C

ity;

Fra

nklin

Dis

tric

t;

Papa

kura

Dis

tric

t

Ham

ilton

Zon

e15

5,80

04

8.4

1449

44.0

19.3

3.2

36.0

Ham

ilton

Cit

y; W

aika

to D

istr

ict;

W

aipa

Dis

tric

t

Cam

brid

ge Z

one

15,2

000

9.2

48

72.4

10.3

1.0

7.3

Wai

pa D

istr

ict

Te A

wam

utu

Zone

14,0

000

7.1

39

92.1

21.2

1.2

31.7

Wai

pa D

istr

ict

Taur

anga

109,

100

211

.014

4858

.415

.51.

529

.1Ta

uran

ga D

istr

ict;

Wes

tern

Bay

of

Plen

ty D

istr

ict

Roto

rua

54,9

002

11.7

1035

85.6

35.4

4.3

51.9

Roto

rua

Dis

tric

t

Gis

born

e32

,700

28.

33

1570

.039

.73.

059

.2G

isbo

rne

Dis

tric

t

Nap

ier Z

one

57,3

000

7.3

1228

69.5

16.9

2.1

33.4

Nap

ier C

ity;

Has

ting

s D

istr

ict

Has

ting

s Zo

ne62

,300

16.

110

3066

.923

.85.

443

.0H

asti

ngs

Dis

tric

t

New

Ply

mou

th49

,600

28.

59

2768

.811

.21.

325

.8N

ew P

lym

outh

Dis

tric

t

Wan

ganu

i39

,400

111

.36

2071

.820

.02.

152

.7W

anga

nui D

istr

ict

Palm

erst

on N

orth

78,8

002

8.3

1336

60.8

13.1

3.0

25.5

Palm

erst

on N

orth

Cit

y

Upp

er H

utt Z

one

35,7

001

9.9

612

45.1

13.1

4.1

15.9

Upp

er H

utt C

ity

Low

er H

utt Z

one

100,

100

28.

822

4255

.415

.79.

231

.7Lo

wer

Hut

t Cit

y

Pori

rua

Zone

50,4

003

8.2

618

46.2

19.9

25.8

50.1

Pori

rua

City


��

Urb

an a

rea

Est�m

ated

po

pula

t�on

(June

200

5)

Prob

lem

ga

mbl

�ng

coun

sell�

ng

serv

�ces

�

New

Gam

bl�n

g H

elpl

�ne

cl�e

nts

pe

r �0,

000

per y

ear

(June

200

�–Ju

ne 2

005)

TABs

NCG

M

venu

es

(�0

June

20

05)

NCG

M

dens

�ty

per �

0,00

0 pe

ople

(�

0 Ju

ne

2005

)

Mao

r�

(200

�)

(%)

Pac�

fic

(200

�)

(%)

Popu

lat�o

n �n

dep

r�ve

d m

eshb

lock

s (N

ZDep

�–�

0)

(200

�) (%

)Te

rr�to

r�al a

utho

r�ty

Wel

lingt

on Z

one

183,

900

314

.424

7052

.77.

25.

112

.5W

ellin

gton

Cit

y

Nel

son

59,6

002

10.6

732

64.9

7.0

1.3

20.9

Nel

son

City

; Tas

man

Dis

tric

t

Chris

tchu

rch

367,

700

412

.163

155

59.4

7.0

2.3

23.5

Chris

tchu

rch

City

; Sel

wyn

Dis

tric

t;

Ban

ks P

enin

sula

Dis

tric

t; W

aim

akar

iri

Dis

tric

t

Dun

edin

114,

700

29.

813

6768

.75.

72.

130

.5D

uned

in C

ity

Inve

rcar

gill

47,8

001

11.8

1526

66.9

11.8

1.9

33.9

Inve

rcar

gill

City

Table 7: Problem gambl�ng summary by ma�n and secondary urban area (cont�nued)

Seco

ndar

y ur

ban

area

s

Puke

kohe

21,5

000

7.4

610

74.0

20.9

4.4

33.0

Fran

klin

Dis

tric

t

Toko

roa

13,9

502

12.2

27

83.2

34.4

18.7

70.6

Sou

th W

aika

to D

istr

ict

Taup

o22

,100

16.

83

1580

.521

.33.

030

.8Ta

upo

Dis

tric

t

Wha

kata

ne18

,700

19.

14

1291

.432

.22.

144

.7W

haka

tane

Dis

tric

t

Haw

era

10,9

002

6.4

210

89.0

16.8

1.0

23.1

Sou

th T

aran

aki D

istr

ict

Feild

ing

14,0

001

7.1*

26

72.9

15.0

1.7

34.8

Man

awat

u D

istr

ict

Levi

n19

,350

16.

75

976

.518

.14.

153

.5H

orow

henu

a D

istr

ict

Kapi

ti37

,400

14.

45

1040

.18.

61.

611

.6Ka

piti

Coa

st D

istr

ict

Mas

tert

on20

,000

28.

35

960

.017

.42.

635

.4M

aste

rton

Dis

tric

t

Ble

nhei

m28

,400

24.

25

1673

.29.

71.

218

.3M

arlb

orou

gh D

istr

ict

Gre

ymou

th9,

560

112

.03

1513

6.0

7.2

0.8

34.0

Gre

y D

istr

ict

Ash

burt

on16

,450

28.

53

864

.45.

30.

59.

6A

shbu

rton

Dis

tric

t

Tim

aru

27,2

002

10.3

820

83.5

5.5

0.8

28.8

Tim

aru

Dis

tric

t

Oam

aru

12,6

501

5.1*

38

72.7

4.4

0.9

21.1

Wai

taki

Dis

tric

t

Gor

e9,

850

06.

1*2

681

.211

.00.

720

.3G

ore

Dis

tric

t

Sou

rce:

Min

istr

y of

Hea

lth,

Gam

blin

g H

elpl

ine,

TA

B (2

005)

, Dep

artm

ent o

f Int

erna

l Aff

airs

(200

5c),

200

1 Ce

nsus

� Th

e nu

mbe

r of p

robl

em g

ambl

ing

face

-to-

face

cou

nsel

ling

serv

ices

incl

udes

all

perm

anen

t cou

nsel

ling

serv

ices

, and

any

tow

ns w

here

mob

ile s

ervi

ces

prov

ided

by

the

Prob

lem

Gam

blin

g

Foun

dati

on a

re a

vaila

ble.

A li

st o

f all

prob

lem

gam

blin

g co

unse

lling

ser

vice

s in

clud

ed in

this

ana

lysi

s is

in A

ppen

dix

1.


�2

Table �: Problem gambl�ng summary by m�nor urban area

Urban areaPopulat�on

(200�)

Problem gambl�ng

counsell�ng serv�ces� TABs

NCGM venues (June 2005)

NCGMs (June 2005)

Maor� (200�)

(%)

Pac�fic (200�)

(%)

Populat�on �n depr�ved meshblocks

(NZDep �–�0) (200�) (%) Terr�tor�al author�ty

Kaitaia 5,154 1 1 5 81 46.5 2.7 87.6 Far North District

Kerikeri 4,848 1 1 4 47 12.0 1.2 25.0 Far North District

Kaikohe 4,023 1 1 3 50 63.5 4.8 100.0 Far North District

Dargaville 4,521 1 0 7 64 28.3 3.2 62.5 Kaipara District

Snells Beach 3,063 0 0 1 5 6.5 1.1 8.6 Rodney District

Waiheke Island 7,131 1 1 4 36 11.2 3.2 51.0 Auckland City

Waiuku 6,681 0 2 3 45 15.5 2.6 20.0 Franklin District

Huntly 6,828 0 2 5 60 42.6 5.0 81.5 Waikato District

Te Kuiti 4,368 1 1 4 67 44.7 2.2 60.2 Waitomo District

Taumarunui 5,121 1 1 5 63 44.3 2.1 84.5 Ruapehu District

Whitianga 3,075 1 1 3 54 11.3 0.9 30.8Thames-Coromandel District

Whangamata 3,852 1 2 6 80 13.9 1.2 51.5Thames-Coromandel District

Thames 6,711 2 3 10 131 15.9 1.7 38.7Thames-Coromandel District

Paeroa 3,882 1 3 5 65 28.7 2.2 53.9 Hauraki District

Waihi 4,527 1 0 2 30 17.4 1.7 91.4 Hauraki District

Te Aroha 3,681 1 2 4 50 13.0 1.5 36.9 Matamata-Piako District

Morrinsville 6,156 1 1 4 53 14.5 1.5 32.7 Matamata-Piako District

Matamata 6,066 1 2 5 80 12.3 0.7 14.4 Matamata-Piako District

Putaruru 3,765 0 0 4 50 29.6 2.3 57.5 South Waikato District

Te Puke Community 6,756 1 2 6 75 23.3 2.8 43.1Western Bay of Plenty District

Turangi 3,435 1 0 3 47 57.6 2.5 84.0 Taupo District

Kawerau 6,972 0 1 5 73 56.0 3.6 86.7 Kawerau District

Opotiki 3,999 1 1 5 53 59.0 3.1 82.9 Opotiki District

Wairoa 4,437 0 1 4 62 56.2 1.4 81.7 Wairoa District

Waipukurau 3,909 0 1 5 61 23.4 2.5 31.1Central Hawke’s Bay District

Dannevirke 5,328 0 3 3 51 23.9 1.6 51.7 Tararua District

Waitara 6,255 0 1 3 41 33.2 1.3 94.9 New Plymouth District

Stratford 5,229 1 1 6 58 11.6 0.5 43.4 Stratford District

Marton 4,746 1 1 7 55 23.1 1.5 52.8 Rangitikei District

Foxton Community 4,626 1 1 3 35 24.3 1.6 85.9 Horowhenua District

Otaki 5,628 1 1 5 76 30.2 3.0 67.6 Kapiti Coast District

Carterton 4,095 0 2 3 40 13.0 2.1 24.9 Carterton District

Picton 3,984 1 1 4 44 17.2 0.9 22.7 Marlborough District

Motueka 6,900 0 1 6 70 13.0 0.6 35.0 Tasman District

Westport 3,780 1 1 8 58 8.2 0.4 75.6 Buller District

Hokitika 3,474 0 1 5 53 13.1 0.9 35.5 Westland District

Rangiora 10,818 1 2 6 83 5.7 0.6 10.4 Waimakariri District

Temuka 4,005 1 1 5 55 8.8 0.4 11.2 Timaru District

Balclutha 4,107 0 1 4 36 6.8 0.7 20.8 Clutha District


��

Urban areaPopulat�on

(200�)

Problem gambl�ng

counsell�ng serv�ces� TABs

NCGM venues (June 2005)

NCGMs (June 2005)

Maor� (200�)

(%)

Pac�fic (200�)

(%)

Populat�on �n depr�ved meshblocks

(NZDep �–�0) (200�) (%) Terr�tor�al author�ty

Alexandra 4,401 0 1 5 62 6.1 0.3 2.6 Central Otago District

Wanaka 3,342 0 1 5 47 3.1 0.4 0.0Queenstown-Lakes District

Queenstown 8,523 2 2 4 64 6.7 0.7 3.5Queenstown-Lakes District

Source: Ministry of Health, Gambling Helpline, TAB (2005), Department of Internal Affairs (2005c), 2001 Census

1 This includes all permanent problem gambling face-to-face counselling services, and any towns where mobile services

provided by the Problem Gambling Foundation are available. A list of all problem gambling counselling services included

in this analysis is in Appendix 1.

However, some urban areas do not appear to have either a permanent problem gambling service or a contracted mobile Problem Gambling Foundation service. Some of these towns include Waipukurau, Dannevirke, Hokitika, Alexandra, Balclutha and Gore.

These results do not take into account mobile counselling services, which may be able to travel to these areas. For example, some urban areas have mobile services that can visit them (for example, Wairoa), or are located close to another urban area that provides a service (for example, Cambridge and Te Awamutu are relatively close to Hamilton). The urban areas identified in Tables 7 and 8 as not having a problem gambling counselling service warrant further attention, to ensure that people living in these areas are able to access nearby or mobile problem gambling counselling services.


��

Travel d�stance analys�sAn analysis by region using travel distances to the nearest problem gambling service provides information on current service gaps that may cross administrative boundaries. This analysis enables better identification of the regions that are located a long distance from the nearest problem gambling counselling service.

Figure 12 shows the distance to the nearest problem gambling service using the road network. The problem gambling services used in this analysis included all permanent problem gambling treatment centres funded by the Ministry of Health, and the mobile problem gambling services that the Problem Gambling Foundation is contracted to provide to certain towns.

This map shows that some regions may be lacking face-to-face problem gambling counselling services and may be located a considerable distance from the nearest service. In general, service gaps appear to be clustered geographically in regions, mainly affecting small towns and rural areas. Eight regions were identified as being a considerable distance from the nearest problem gambling counselling service, and may warrant further investigation.

Rodney District (population 89,100) lies between Auckland and Whangarei. It has no permanent problem gambling services within its boundary. This territorial authority borders Waitakere City and North Shore City, and it is possible that services in these territorial authorities also provide services to the Rodney District. Rodney District has a low density of NCGMs and slightly below average use of the Gambling Helpline. The nearest problem gambling counselling services are about 52.5 km from Warkworth, 60.8 km from Snells Beach and 71.1 km from Wellsford.

There is a geographic region in the Central North Island with no permanent problem gambling services, which includes the towns of Taihape and Ohakune. Previous analyses in this report have not shown a service gap in this area, as the region straddles several territorial authorities. The nearest problem gambling counselling services are 72.6 km from Taihape, 62.4 km from Waiouru, 77.7 km from Ohakune and 76.6 km from Raetihi. Although the population in each of these towns is less than 3000, gambling venues are readily accessible in these towns.

Wairoa District (population 8,410) is serviced by a mobile unit from the Napier/Hastings problem gambling service. This service is located over 100 km from Wairoa, while the Gisborne problem gambling service is located about 97 km from Wairoa. Despite this distance, there has still been some use of face-to-face counselling services in Wairoa, suggesting that people in this district are accessing the mobile services provided to Wairoa. A relatively high number of people in the at-risk population groups live in the Wairoa District.


�5

F�gure �2: Map of problem gambl�ng serv�ces and d�stances to these serv�ces, October 2005


��

Tararua District (population 17,600) has no permanent problem gambling service located within its boundary. The main town, Dannevirke, is located 54 km from the nearest problem gambling service in Palmerston North. There were no clients of face-to-face problem gambling services from the Tararua District in 2004/2005, although the use of Gambling Helpline was moderate in 2003–2005.

Tasman District (population 46,600) has many gambling outlets (22 NCGM venues and five TABs) but no permanent problem gambling services within its boundary, with the nearest service located in Nelson. The main township in Tasman District, Motueka (population 6,900), is 43 km from Nelson. However, the smaller town of Takaka (population 1,200), is about 98.4 km from Nelson, making problem gambling services potentially difficult to access for this population. Overall, the number of new face-to-face problem gambling counselling clients was lower in the Tasman District compared to the national average in 2004/2005.

Central Otago has several areas located a relatively long distance from the problem gambling services located in Queenstown, Dunedin, Oamaru and Invercargill. In particular, there are long distances between problem gambling counselling services and the towns of Wanaka (68.2 km), Cromwell (59.5 km) and Alexandra (92.3 km).

Clutha District (population 17,200) has no permanent problem gambling service located within its boundary, with the main township of Balclutha about 80 km from the nearest service in Dunedin. The Clutha District has 13 NCGM venues and three TABs.

Gore District (population 12,400) has no permanent problem gambling service. Within this district, there are seven NCGM venues and two TABs; all except one NCGM venue are in Gore township (population 9,900). Gore is located about 63 km from the nearest problem gambling service in Invercargill. In the Gore District, there was no use of face-to-face problem gambling services in 2004, although there was moderate use of the Gambling Helpline.

The regions and towns identified above may need further investigation into problem gambling service accessibility. It may be feasible to have mobile services that can visit these towns, if they are not currently doing so. In other cases, the remoteness of the town may indicate that there is a need to identify different service options.

This analysis is based on the locations of problem gambling services as listed in Appendix 1, which include the towns the Problem Gambling Foundation is contracted to provide counselling services to. However, the analysis does not take into account any mobile services run by other providers, which may be servicing these areas. More detailed maps showing these travel distances are also available as part of this report, at the DHB level (Appendix 5) and territorial authority level (Appendix 6).


�7

D�scuss�on and conclus�on Analysing the geographic distribution of health services can provide information and insight into service access and provision, as well as aiding our understanding of the relationship between accessibility to gambling opportunities and gambling-related harm. However, this type of analysis carries with it assumptions and limitations.

This report assumed that NCGMs, and, to a lesser extent, casino games, casino gaming machines and track betting, are the primary modes of gambling for most problem gamblers. This assumption was based on evidence from clients seeking help for gambling problems, the great majority of whom cite NCGMs as their primary mode of gambling (Ministry of Health 2005b), as well as evidence from the 1999 National Prevalence Survey, which found that problem gamblers are more likely to prefer playing NCGMs or betting on horse or dog races than other forms of gambling (Abbott and Volberg 2000).

The locations of problem gambling counselling services were obtained from individual service providers funded by the Ministry of Health. This list also included towns that the Problem Gambling Foundation is contracted to provide services for, through permanent or mobile services. However, this list did not include mobile services run by other providers, from existing clinics to clients’ homes. These mobile coverage areas could be reported on in future, as mobile services represent an additional way for people to access problem gambling counselling services.

The Gambling Helpline client data had limitations, so must be interpreted cautiously. Some helpline clients reported an incomplete address, for example providing only a city. By default, these addresses were recorded as being in the central city, although these cities incorporate much larger geographic regions, sometimes spanning several DHBs and territorial authorities. This may partly account for the high usage rates of Gambling Helpline in areas such as Auckland City District and Wellington City District. It should also be noted that data from the Asian gambling helpline has not been included in the analysis in this report.

The locations of gambling venues and problem gambling services were geocoded as accurately as possible. However, some addresses were placed only to the nearest street, suburb or town. It is therefore possible that minor errors may be apparent in a few locations, particularly on the detailed maps. The lists of locations of NCGM venues and TABs were assumed to be accurate and complete.

The interpretation of the gaming machine data with respect to risk factors involved difficulties, as there is a strong correlation between ethnicity and deprivation, with Maori and Pacific peoples more likely to live in more deprived areas. The analysis also assumed that people living close to NCGM venues were at increased risk of having gambling problems. Related evidence is available (Marshall 2005) suggesting that gambling behaviour is influenced by accessibility at a local level.

The geographic analysis had some limitations. At the DHB and territorial authority levels, analysis was limited to arbitrary administrative areas, over relatively large areas. To overcome this, service gaps were also identified using urban areas, as well as the road


��

distances between towns and the nearest problem gambling counselling service. This provided a better idea of geographic regions in need, with the analysis not constrained by administrative boundaries.

Given these limitations, the analyses in this report have provided a description of the geographic distribution of gambling venues and problem gambling counselling services in New Zealand.

Since the Gambling Act 2003 became law in September 2003, the number of NCGMs and venues has decreased in New Zealand. While expenditure on NCGMs has increased significantly over the past decade, total expenditure on these machines decreased slightly from 2004 to 2005 (for the year to 30 June). However, from 2003 to 2005, the number of NCGM venues with the maximum number of machines on site has increased.

Non-casino gaming machine venues and TABs are much more likely to be located in more deprived areas than less deprived areas. The distribution of NCGMs by deprivation has remained relatively consistent since 2003 (Wheeler 2003). Maori and Pacific peoples are substantially over-represented in more deprived areas, and have an increased risk of problem gambling (Ministry of Health in press, Abbott & Volberg 2000). Given the evidence suggesting inequalities in gambling-related harm, and the effect of gambling accessibility on gambling behaviour, the association between gambling accessibility and gambling-related harm should be further investigated.

The number of problem gambling counselling services in New Zealand has increased since 2003, and currently cover a wide geographic area. Most cities and large towns have a problem gambling counselling service. Furthermore, many service gaps identified in 2003 have now been filled, for example, in the towns of Kaikoura, Whakatane and Masterton.

The analysis in this report identified some areas that warrant further investigation of the accessibility of problem gambling counselling services, although this was a somewhat subjective process. The assessment attempted to account for many variables, including population size, distance from services, population at risk, and gambling opportunities.

Some areas identified as warranting further attention included Rodney District (including the towns of Snells Beach, Wellsford and Warkworth), the Central North Island (including the towns of Taihape, Waiouru, Ohakune and Raetihi), Central Otago (including the towns of Alexandra, Cromwell and Wanaka), Gore, the Clutha District (in particular the town of Balclutha), Tararua District (in particular the town of Dannevirke), Tasman District (the towns of Motueka and Takaka) and Wairoa (although this town has services provided by the Napier/Hastings service).

These areas were generally located a relatively long way from the nearest problem gambling service. However, this analysis did not account for mobile services, other than those provided by the Problem Gambling Foundation. These are only potential areas that may warrant more detailed consideration. Other areas may also deserve further attention if the risk factors were prioritised differently or additional information was available. In areas where further services are needed, permanent or mobile counselling services, telephone helplines or public health initiatives could help to fulfil the need for problem gambling counselling services.


��

Append�x �: Locat�ons of problem gambl�ng counsell�ng serv�cesTable A.�: Locat�ons of problem gambl�ng counsell�ng serv�ces, �� October 2005

Prov�der Street address Suburb Town Terr�tor�al author�tyD�str�ct Health Board

Problem Gambling Foundation Redan Road Kaitaia Far North District Northland

Problem Gambling Foundation (a) Kaikohe Far North District Northland

Problem Gambling Foundation (a) Kerikeri Far North District Northland

Problem Gambling Foundation 69 Bank Street Whangarei Whangarei District Northland

Nga Manga Puriri Trust 1A First Avenue (g) Whangarei Whangarei District Northland

Problem Gambling Foundation (a) Dargaville Kaipara District Northland

Problem Gambling Foundation 7 Trading Place Henderson Waitakere Waitakere City Waitemata

Wai Health 13–15 Ratanui Street Henderson Waitakere Waitakere City Waitemata

Oasis – Salvation Army 7 View Road Henderson Waitakere Waitakere City Waitemata

Oasis – Salvation Army 275 Glengarry Road Glen Eden Waitakere Waitakere City Waitemata

Oasis – Salvation ArmyCorner of Shakespeare & Alma Road Milford North Shore North Shore City Waitemata

Problem Gambling Foundation 3A Gibbons Road Takapuna North Shore North Shore City Waitemata

Oasis – Salvation Army Norman King Street Northcote North Shore North Shore City Waitemata

Odyssey House 56 Bollard Avenue Avondale Auckland Auckland City Auckland

Odyssey House 41 Charlotte Street Eden Terrace Auckland Auckland City Auckland

Problem Gambling Foundation 128 Khyber Pass Road Newmarket Auckland Auckland City Auckland

Hapai Te Hauora Tapui Manukau Road Epsom Auckland Auckland City Auckland

Problem Gambling Foundation Tahatai Road Waiheke Islands Auckland Auckland City Auckland

Odyssey House 61 Campbell Road Onehunga North Auckland Auckland City Auckland

Oasis – Salvation Army 99 Church Street Otahuhu Auckland Auckland City Auckland

Oasis – Salvation Army 16B Bakerfield Place Manukau Central Auckland Manukau CityCounties Manukau

Pacificare Trust92–98 Saint George Street (d) Papatoetoe Manukau Manukau City

Counties Manukau

Problem Gambling Foundation 207 Ti Rakau Drive Pakuranga Manukau Manukau CityCounties Manukau

Hapai Te Hauora Tapui 16A Israel Avenue Otara Manukau Manukau CityCounties Manukau

Problem Gambling Foundation 366 Massey Road Mangere East Manukau Manukau CityCounties Manukau

Problem Gambling Foundation Putney Way Manukau Central Manukau Manukau CityCounties Manukau

Problem Gambling Foundation 4A Opaheke Road Papakura Central Papakura Papakura DistrictCounties Manukau

Hauora Waikato 96 Rostrevor Street Hamilton Hamilton City Waikato

Pacific Peoples Addiction Service 562 Anglesea Street Hamilton Hamilton City Waikato

Oasis – Salvation Army Garden Place Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton City Waikato

Problem Gambling Foundation 312 Victoria Street Hamilton Hamilton City Waikato

Problem Gambling Foundation (a) Te Kuiti Waitomo District Waikato

Problem Gambling Foundation (a) Taumaranui Ruapehu District Waikato


�0


Problem Gambling Foundation 45 Tiki Road Coromandel Thames-Coromandel District Waikato

Problem Gambling Foundation 19 Buffalo Beach Road Whitianga Thames-Coromandel District Waikato

Problem Gambling Foundation 403 Mackay Street Thames Thames-Coromandel District Waikato

Waikato DHBCorner of Mary Street & Rolleston Street Thames

Thames-Coromandel District Waikato

Problem Gambling Foundation Ocean Road Whangamata Thames-Coromandel District Waikato

Problem Gambling Foundation 1A Corbett Street Paeroa Hauraki District Waikato

Problem Gambling Foundation 4 Mueller Street Waihi Hauraki District Waikato

Oasis – Salvation Army MorrinsvilleMatamata-Piako District Waikato

Oasis – Salvation Army 61 Rewi Street Te ArohaMatamata-Piako District Waikato

Problem Gambling Foundation (a) MatamataMatamata-Piako District Waikato

Problem Gambling Foundation (a) TokoroaSouth Waikato District Waikato

Oasis – Salvation Army 567 Balmoral Road TokoroaSouth Waikato District Waikato

Waikato DHB Maraetai Road TokoroaSouth Waikato District Waikato

Problem Gambling Foundation 17th Avenue Tauranga Tauranga District Bay of Plenty

Problem Gambling Foundation 1 Dickson Road Papamoa Beach East

Mount Maunganui Tauranga District Bay of Plenty

Problem Gambling Foundation Beach Road Katikati Western Bay of Plenty District Bay of Plenty

Problem Gambling Foundation 100 Jellicoe Street Te Puke TaurangaWestern Bay of Plenty District Bay of Plenty

Problem Gambling Foundation 34 Stewart Street Whakatane Whakatane District Bay of Plenty

Problem Gambling Foundation (a) Opotiki Opotiki District Bay of Plenty

Te Kahui Hauora 2A Ranolf Street Rotorua Rotorua District Lakes

Problem Gambling Foundation 1272 Fenton Street Rotorua Rotorua District Lakes

Problem Gambling Foundation 129 Spa Road Taupo Taupo District Lakes

Problem Gambling Foundation (a) Turangi Taupo District Lakes

Ngati Porou Hauora 2 McKenzie Street ( c) Te Puia Springs Gisborne District Tairawhiti

Ngati Porou Hauora Fitzgerald Street (c ) Gisborne Gisborne District Tairawhiti

Problem Gambling Foundation 338 Palmerston Road Gisborne Gisborne District Tairawhiti

Te Rangihaeata Oranga 200 Queen Street (f) Hastings Hastings District Hawke’s Bay

Toiora (Tui Ora) 46 Vivian Street New Plymouth

New Plymouth District Taranaki

Problem Gambling Foundation 36 Devon Street West New Plymouth

New Plymouth District Taranaki

Problem Gambling Foundation (a) Stratford Stratford District Taranaki

Problem Gambling Foundation (a) HaweraSouth Taranaki District Taranaki

Toiora (Tui Ora)Corner of Regent Street & Furlong Street Hawera

South Taranaki District Taranaki


��


Problem Gambling FoundationCorner of Cook Street & Guyton Street Wanganui Wanganui District Whanganui

Problem Gambling Foundation Rangitikei House Marton Rangitikei District Whanganui

Problem Gambling Foundation 68 Aorangi Street Feilding Manawatu District MidCentral

Problem Gambling Foundation Main Street Foxton Horowhenua District MidCentral

Best Care Whakapai Hauora 140–148 Maxwells Line AwapuniPalmerston North

Palmerston North City MidCentral

Problem Gambling Foundation 157 Broadway Avenue Palmerston North

Palmerston North City MidCentral

Problem Gambling Foundation 21 Durham Street Levin Horowhenua District MidCentral

Problem Gambling Foundation Main Street Otaki Kapiti Coast District MidCentral

Oasis – Salvation Army 41 Queen Street Upper Hutt Wellington Upper Hutt City Hutt

Oasis – Salvation Army 14 Laings Road Lower Hutt Wellington Lower Hutt City Hutt

Problem Gambling Foundation 41 Kings Crescent Lower Hutt Wellington Lower Hutt City Hutt

Problem Gambling Foundation 15A Ngahina Street Paraparaumu Wellington Kapiti Coast DistrictCapital and Coast

Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira 26 Ngatitoa Street (d) Porirua Wellington Porirua CityCapital and Coast

Oasis – Salvation ArmyCorner of Warspite Avenue & Fatame Street Porirua Wellington Porirua City

Capital and Coast

Problem Gambling Foundation Hagley Street Porirua Wellington Porirua CityCapital and Coast

Problem Gambling Foundation 69–71 Boulcott StreetWellington Central Wellington Wellington City

Capital and Coast

Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira 9–11 Frederick Street (d) Te Aro Wellington Wellington CityCapital and Coast

Oasis – Salvation Army 22 Riddiford Street Newtown Wellington Wellington CityCapital and Coast

Problem Gambling FoundationCorner of Jackson Street & Chapel Street Masterton Masterton District Wairarapa

Wairarapa Addiction Services 20 Victoria Street Masterton Masterton District Wairarapa

Problem Gambling Foundation (a) FeatherstonSouth Wairarapa District Wairarapa

Te Rapuora Health Services 210 Waikawa Road (e) Picton Marlborough DistrictNelson-Marlborough

Te Rapuora Health ServicesCorner of Charles Street & Seymour Street Blenheim Marlborough District

Nelson-Marlborough

Problem Gambling Foundation 30 Hospital Road Redwoodtown Blenheim Marlborough DistrictNelson-Marlborough

Te Kahui Hauora o Ngati Koata Trust 30 Vanguard Street Nelson Central Nelson Nelson City

Nelson-Marlborough

Problem Gambling Foundation 31 Pascoe Street Annesbrook Nelson Nelson CityNelson-Marlborough

Problem Gambling Foundation 111 Palmerston Street Westport Buller District West Coast

Problem Gambling Foundation 109 Mackay Street Greymouth Grey District West Coast

Problem Gambling Foundation Esplanade Kaikoura Kaikoura District Canterbury

Oasis – Salvation Army Ashley Street Rangiora Christchurch Waimakariri District Canterbury

Oasis – Salvation Army Sewell Street Kaiapoi North Kaiapoi Waimakariri District Canterbury

He Oranga Pounamu/He Waka Tapu 161 Pages Road Christchurch Christchurch City Canterbury

Oasis – Salvation Army 126 Bealey Avenue Christchurch Christchurch City Canterbury


�2


Problem Gambling Foundation 329 Durham Street Christchurch Christchurch City Canterbury

Oasis – Salvation Army 28 Elizabeth Street Ashburton West Ashburton Ashburton District Canterbury

Problem Gambling Foundation 155 Tancred Street Ashburton East Ashburton Ashburton District Canterbury

Problem Gambling Foundation 8 Domain Avenue Temuka Timaru Timaru DistrictSouth Canterbury

Oasis – Salvation Army 22 Sefton Street Timaru Timaru DistrictSouth Canterbury

Problem Gambling FoundationCorner of Queen Street & Edward Street Timaru Timaru District

South Canterbury

Problem Gambling Foundation Thames Street Oamaru Waitaki District Otago

Oasis – Salvation Army 44A Filleul Street Dunedin Central Dunedin Dunedin City Otago

Problem Gambling Foundation 283–301 Moray Place Dunedin Central Dunedin Dunedin City Otago

Oasis – Salvation Army 29 Camp Street QueenstownQueenstown-Lakes District Southland

Problem Gambling Foundation (b) QueenstownQueenstown-Lakes District Southland

Problem Gambling Foundation/He Oranga Pounamu & Nga Kete Matauranga Pounamu Charitable Trust 86 Victoria Avenue Invercargill Invercargill City Southland

Notes:

(a) The Problem Gambling Foundation provides services to this area when required, although there is no

permanent clinic situated here.

(b) Shifting soon to new premises.

(c) Provides services from Gisborne to Potaka.

(d) Also provides services to clients’ homes.

(e) Will be opening in early 2006.

(f) Soon shifting to Napier. Services a large region, including Napier, Hastings, Waipukurau and Wairoa.

(g) Also provides services to Dargaville, Ruakaka and Hikurangi.

(h) Also provides services to clients’ homes in Gore (but not as far away as Clutha).


��

ReferencesAbbott MW, Volberg RA. 2000. Taking the Pulse on Gambling and Problem Gambling in New

Zealand: A report on phase one of the 1999 National Prevalence Survey. Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs.

Amey B. 2001. People’s Participation in and Attitudes to Gaming, 1985–2000: Final results of the 2000 survey. Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs.

Blaszczynski A, Nower L. 2002. A pathway model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction 97: 487–99.

Department of Internal Affairs. 2004. Gambling Statistics Table & Explanations Page (1980-2004). URL: http://www.dia.govt.nz

Department of Internal Affairs. 2005a. Gambling statistics: casino compliance with Gambling Act. URL: http://www.dia.govt.nz

Department of Internal Affairs. 2005b. Gambling statistics 1980–2004. URL: http://www.dia.govt.nz

Department of Internal Affairs. 2005c. Venues & numbers (sorted by territorial authority) at 30 June 2005. URL: http://www.dia.govt.nz

Department of Internal Affairs. 2005d. Gaming machine numbers June 1994–June 2005. URL: http://www.dia.govt.nz

Department of Internal Affairs 2006. Gambling Statistics (press release).

Marshall D. 2005. The Gambling Environment and Gambler Behaviour: Evidence from Richmond-Tweed, Australia. International Gambling Studies 5(1): 63–83.

Ministry of Health. 2003. Problem Gambling Geospatial Application (Internal Report). Wellington: Ministry of Health.

Ministry of Health. 2005a. Preventing and Minimising Gambling Harm: Strategic plan 2004–2010. Wellington: Ministry of Health.

Ministry of Health. 2005b. Problem Gambling Intervention Services in New Zealand: 2004 national statistics. Wellington: Ministry of Health.

Ministry of Health. In press. Problem Gambling in New Zealand: Analysis of the 2002/03 New Zealand Health Survey. Wellington: Ministry of Health.

Paton-Simpson G, Gruys M, Hannifin J. 2004. Problem Gambling Counselling in New Zealand: 2003 National Statistics. Palmerston North: Problem Gambling Purchasing Agency.

Salmond C, Crampton P. 2002. NZDep2001 Index of Deprivation. Wellington: Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences.


Problem Gambling Geography of New Zealand 2005 › notebook › nbbooks.nsf › 0 ›...

Documents

Transcript of Problem Gambling Geography of New Zealand 2005 › notebook › nbbooks.nsf › 0 ›...