This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 07 November 2014, At: 07:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Gambling StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rigs20

Meanings of Aboriginal gambling acrossNew South Wales, AustraliaHelen Breen a , Nerilee Hing a , Ashley Gordon b & JeremyBuultjens ca Centre for Gambling Education and Research, School of Tourismand Hospitality Management, Southern Cross University , Lismore ,New South Wales , Australiab Indigenous Australian researcher, Centre for Gambling Educationand Researchc Centre for Gambling Education and Research, School of Business,Southern Cross University , AustraliaPublished online: 15 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Helen Breen , Nerilee Hing , Ashley Gordon & Jeremy Buultjens (2012) Meaningsof Aboriginal gambling across New South Wales, Australia, International Gambling Studies, 12:2,243-256, DOI: 10.1080/14459795.2012.664158

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2012.664158

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:21

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Meanings of Aboriginal gambling across New South Wales, Australia

Helen Breena*, Nerilee Hinga, Ashley Gordonb and Jeremy Buultjensc

aCentre for Gambling Education and Research, School of Tourism and Hospitality Management,Southern Cross University, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia; bIndigenous Australianresearcher, Centre for Gambling Education and Research; cCentre for Gambling Educationand Research, School of Business, Southern Cross University, Australia

(Received 31 August 2011; final version received 1 February 2012)

A social perspective of gambling explains gambling as a consequence of the social,structural and cultural environment in which gamblers live. In the AustralianIndigenous context the social perspective is important, given the significance ofcommunity and family ties. This paper aims to explore meanings of Aboriginalgambling across New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Taking an interpretivist stance,semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 knowledgeable IndigenousAustralians, key elected and nominated state representatives. Meanings of Aboriginalgambling included the collective activity of gambling within social networks in thehope of a win. More problematic meanings of gambling were always gambling to win,chasing losses and continual financial distress which appeared to reduce social networkbonds. Contrasting problem gambling with recreational gambling revealed that someIndigenous gamblers use their existing cultural and kin relationships on which many oftheir social networks are based to gamble together in a controlled recreational manner.

Keywords: gambling; indigenous; Australia; social behaviour; qualitative

Introduction

From a social perspective, gambling can be studied as a consequence of the social, structural

and cultural environment in which gamblers live. Several researchers (e.g. McGowan,

2004; McMillen, 2007) argue that gambling is socially constructed and question whether

people are privileged to act as free agents or are restricted by overarching structural features

in society. Since social constructions of gambling can vary with cultural background, non-

Anglo-Celtic and Indigenous groups may experience gambling and gambling problems in

different ways (e.g. Belanger, 2006; Ministry of Health, 2009; Raylu & Oei, 2004;

Westermeyer et al., 2008). With the rapid international expansion of gambling, particularly

in electronic formats (Smith, 2007), limited research into the complex meanings of

gambling reveals distinctive findings for some cultural groups. For example, gambling is

linked with traditional beliefs in luck, fate and destiny in Chinese communities (Papineau,

2005) andwith justice and retribution beliefs in someVietnamese communities (Ohtsuka&

Ohtsuka, 2010). Gambling by some Canadian First Nations people draws upon spiritual

beliefs, cultural norms and excitement (McGowan & Nixon, 2004; Williams, Stevens, &

Nixon, 2011), but in New Zealand no early Maori gambling, and therefore no traditional

beliefs, have been recorded (Dyall, 2010). Additionally, McMillen (2007) maintains that

ISSN 1445-9795 print/ISSN 1479-4276 online

q 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2012.664158

http://www.tandfonline.com

*Corresponding author. Email: helen.breen@scu.edu.au

International Gambling Studies

Vol. 12, No. 2, August 2012, 243–256

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:21

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

for some cultural groups, problem gambling affects social obligations. Thus, commonly

accepted meanings of gambling and problem gambling involving time and money

limitations may be very narrow for non-Anglo-Celtic and Indigenous groups.

McGowan (2004), referring to gaps in understanding cultural meanings of gambling,

asked why scholarly research was so quiet about meanings of gambling in everyday life.

She pointed to the dominance of positivist research in efforts to establish causal relations

between factors leading to prediction and control of some gambling behaviours. Using

an interpretivist paradigm adds value to positivist studies, generating an understanding

of the depth and breadth of gambling (Reith, 2007). This can be achieved by emulating

the work of Geertz (1983) by providing rich, thick descriptions of gambling, its meanings

and contexts. Similarly, and from the interpretivist perspective, this paper presents a

qualitative study to explain meanings of gambling from the perspective of Indigenous

Australian community leaders.1

Cultural contexts

Australian Indigenous gambling includes non-commercial and commercial activities. While

non-commercial traditional card games pre-date European settlement (Breen, 2008),

contemporary card gambling retains features aligned closely with Indigenous society,

being connected to belief in luck, dreams and spirits (Glaskin, 2005; McDonald & Wombo,

2006); to autonomy and kin relationships (Martin, 1993); and as an accessible pastime

encouraging social interaction and resource redistribution (Altman, 1985; Christie &

Greatorex, 2009; Fogarty, 2009; Hunter & Spargo, 1988). Card games generate funds for

family use, funerals, to pay debts and for consumer goods (Martin, 1993).Women’s gambling

participation appears higher thanmen’s (Phillips, 2003) and some Indigenous women see card

playing as ‘hardwork’ (Goodale, 1987), perhaps contributing to its cultural institution as away

to earn funds (QueenslandDepartment ofCorrectiveServices, 2006).Yet card gamesheldover

several days have been linked to domestic violence (Phillips, 2003), child neglect (Goodale,

1987), school absenteeism and harassment of non-gamblers for resources (Martin, 1993;

Phillips, 2003). Hunter & Spargo (1988) maintain that card games can normalize gambling,

cause anxiety and indebtedness, and undermine community development. Nevertheless,

card games remain popular in many regional and remote Indigenous communities.

Despite its popularity in regional areas, Indigenous card gambling has declined in

towns and cities where Indigenous residents adopt a more western lifestyle (Breen, Hing, &

Gordon, 2010). Simultaneously, the expansion of gaming machines, casinos and wagering

in Australia has resulted in increased Indigenous engagement in commercial gambling

(McMillen & Donnelly, 2008). In a survey of 103 female and 119 male Indigenous

Australians in four areas of NSW (Dickerson et al., 1996), many Indigenous gamblers

(85%) reported positive experiences with gambling as a hobby, interest and form of

relaxation. However, nearly 33.3% said that family members were experiencing gambling-

related problems. This compared unfavourably to 15% of the NSW population. Negative

impacts included gambling to pay debts, arguments about money, borrowing money

without permission, and lost time from work and study. The problem gambling prevalence

rate was 11%, about 20 times higher than the non-Indigenous NSW population (Dickerson

et al., 1996). However, this first study of commercial gambling conducted specifically with

Indigenous Australians did little to reveal underlying gambling meanings.

A decade later, the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of NSW

(AHMRC, 2007) consulted with 98 health, welfare and counsellor service providers in

nine regions to qualitatively investigate Indigenous gambling. Gambling was reported

244 H. Breen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:21

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

as a popular, widely accepted activity, a part of life in many Indigenous communities.

Common gambling impacts included financial losses, child neglect, family disagreements

and legal troubles. Gambling problems were considered shameful and a concern for some

communities (AHMRC, 2007). However, this research reported little about the meanings

of gambling from the perspective of Indigenous Australians themselves.

Social contexts

Indigenous Australians are not one homogeneous community. Diversity is based on

history, family, religion and sexuality. ‘Community’ often describes Indigenous groups

identified by language, country or kinship (Altman& Smith, 1992). Kinship is fundamental

to social relationships. Complex kinship relationships allow people to work out where they

stand in relation to reciprocal obligations to others. A Yankunytjatjara Elder explains:

‘Aboriginal people know one another through their family connections which also extend

into their connection to their country . . . our country is our original mother . . . ngura

meaning country and walytja meaning kinship and family’ (Randall, 2003, p. 9). Under

European law, rights are based on the individual, but with Indigenous Australian law or

tjukurrpa (Randall, 2003, p. 16) rights are based in the community and take precedence

over individuals. The significance of community acceptance is also recognized by the

federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) where an Indigenous Australian is

‘a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or

Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he or she lives’

(DAA 1981, p. 1).

Socially connected communities are fundamental for Indigenous Australian society.

Communities with binding ties and strong social networks are better positioned to address

problems than those without (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000). Social networks, or collections

of intangible relations with value and power through their common properties, are referred

to by Bourdieu (1989) as social capital. Putnam (2000, p. 19) explains social capital as

‘social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them’.

While Bourdieu (1989) views social capital as a resource that facilitates an individual’s

ability to better themselves either socially or professionally, Putnam (2000) considers this

resource as operating at a community level, through the creation and adaptation of valued

social networks.

Social capital may have structural and cognitive elements (McKenzie, 2002). Structural

elements include behaviours, roles, rules and networks which bring people together, while

cognitive elements include beliefs, attitudes and values that produce cooperative

behaviour. These elements are complex and multidimensional, but typical benefits include

the trust, mutual values, participation and reciprocity seen in community engagement

(Carroll & Stanfield, 2003). While self-interest generally underpins decisions producing

cooperative behaviour (Ridley, 1996), the density of community social networks often

reflects the degree of cooperation that people see as mutually beneficial (Putnam, 2000).

Benefits usually include a sense of well-being and belonging. However, elements of social

capital may nurture negative behaviour such as encouraging vigilante groups or act to

prevent social inclusion. Where social cohesion is high amongst the mainstream

population, social exclusion may occur for smaller groups including minorities and

Indigenous groups (Hunter, 2000). If the population is small or scattered and connections

irregular, social networks and cooperative norms may be sparse. For Indigenous groups

who feel excluded in everyday society by discrimination, the need to feel socially included

through dense social networks may be strong.

International Gambling Studies 245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:21

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Indigenous Australians have survived for over 40,000 years (Randall, 2003). Although

comprising only 2.5% of Australia’s population, the Indigenous population is growing

rapidly compared to the rest of the population (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS],

2006). Indigenous families are generally larger with more dependent children and the

Indigenous population is noticeably younger than the non-Indigenous population (ABS,

2006). Yet for over 200 years, Indigenous Australians have suffered discrimination,

conflict and removal from family and homelands resulting in a higher incidence of health

and well-being problems (Atkinson, 2002; Martin, 2008). With lower employment and

education and higher psychological stress levels, Indigenous Australians endure social and

economic disadvantage (ABS, 2010). Thus, attempting to overcome poverty by winning

money may motivate gambling by Indigenous Australians (Cultural Perspectives, 2005;

McDonald & Wombo, 2006). Additionally, gambling where others congregate may

reduce social isolation (McMillen, Marshall, Murphy, Lorenzen, & Waugh, 2004). Thus,

gambling can be seen and used as a way to increase social and economic prospects when

other avenues are restricted. In this research, social capital provides a theoretical basis for

examining meanings of gambling for Indigenous Australians.

Methods

An interpretivist approach supports the principle of consulting with people knowledgeable

about the topic being researched to reach sound conclusions reflecting participants’ views.

It offers opportunities to draw on strengths of relatedness and compatibility, is based on the

assumption that reality is constructed by people interacting with each other, and is focused

on empathetic understanding within people’s social and cultural contexts (Gubrium &

Holstein, 2000). Qualitative methodologies are used here to explore the meaning of

individual people’s experiences as ‘knowledgeable agents’ (Giddens, 1991, p. 12).

Thirteen Indigenous Australian leaders from different regions across NSWwere invited

and agreed to participate in an interview about gambling in their region. Their regions

included three urban, four regional, four rural and two remote locations. All participants had

gambled at some time, even if they did not gamble now, and all lived in their community.

Nine participants were democratically elected with a two-year mandate to represent

their Aboriginal residents, somewhat like First Nations Tribal Councilors in Canada.

These representatives work for their regional members and assist them to clarify and

improve health, housing, legal, employment and other issues as they arise. They facilitate

communicationwith local, state and federal governments. They are leaders who collectively

develop community land and business plans and thus need a high degree of participation and

involvement with local residents. The other four participants were well-known people

appointed to regional positions, representing community health services, welfare and sport.

Again, they had strong community links andwere involved in providingAboriginal regional

services. Although these four people were bureaucrats in regional positions, potentially

giving politically correct responses, they were asked the same set of questions with

knowledge that we were attempting to explore a community view of gambling in their

region. Thus, with high levels of community involvement, their personal experience of

gambling, their observations of and knowledge about gambling in the communities they

represented, worked with or led, these 13 participants were very knowledgeable and able to

provide information about Indigenous gambling in their own region.

Each interview was conducted by an Aboriginal male researcher by telephone because

the geographical spread of participants meant the cost of personal interviews could not be

met. All interviews took at least one hour, although many were longer. They were recorded

246 H. Breen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:21

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and transcribed. Permission to conduct this research was gained from the AHMRC of NSW

(Ethics no: 760/10) and a university ethics committee (Ethics no: ECN-10-178).

Guiding questions (Appendix 1) were used to explore meanings of Aboriginal card and

commercial gambling. Interview transcriptswere analysed using thematic analysis.A theme

captures something important about the data in relation to the research aim. Themes were

generated inductively from the raw data and deductively from theory and prior research as

suggested by Braun & Clarke (2006). Data coding, analysis and interpretation processes

were circular, occurring simultaneously in an iterative way through immersion in the data,

code generation, searching for and reviewing themes, interpreting and naming themes and

then writing up. Emergent themes are discussed in the results.

While unable to report in detail all individual differences across the regions, this paper

attempts to extract general or typical comments that apply to many Indigenous Australians

in NSW to reveal a sound understanding of the meanings of gambling. However, where

appropriate, personal participant experiences and quotes reveal specific examples of issues

that impact on them, their families and communities.

Results

The following analysis explores meanings of gambling as reported by the 13 Indigenous

leaders. When asked what the word ‘gambling’ meant to an Aboriginal person today, two

equally important positive aspects raised were socializing and winning money, although

this was tempered by stress-related gambling. A key negative aspect was recognized

as continual financial distress and its impacts.

Social aspects

Most respondents indicated that gambling can contribute to a sense of community through

socializing with family and friends, as reflected in sub-themes including social interaction,

sharing common interests and escaping from stress. Gambling in a group appeared to build

or maintain social networks and reduce social isolation linked to being part of a minority

group. ‘It’s where they find out about what’s going on in the community, they seem to do a

lot of networking there’ and ‘It’s just the fun . . . it’s a bit of a social outlet, an opportunity

to get together, yarn, laugh and joke.’ Typical comments indicating a sense of community

through socializing, including hints about negative impacts, were:

Well gambling has a lot to do with socialising these days. Most Koori’s and Murri’s like to gettogether and let off a bit of steam by having a press on the poker machines or just treating it asa little bit of socialising.2 Yes, I think we treat it more like a place to escape I suppose . . .most people think that by going to do that they might feel better by doing it but it actually hasa more negative effect on them.

If they’re in a group, they might socialise . . . have a few beers . . . has that social aspect aboutit, that social gathering because gambling isn’t just restricted to horse or poker machines.It’s the social aspect which I think tends to be overlooked a proportion of the time.

The following responses highlight the historical importance placed on social and

cultural networks: ‘Culture, because they got brought up with it . . . because they see Mum

and Dad do it, grandparents do it.’ Continuing the interconnectedness amongst Indigenous

Australians was associated with gambling in a group for this person:

It’s that social aspect and they’ve become a close circle . . . the same old ones, the regular onesthat tend to do it . . . ladies that play cards they don’t do it for monetary but the socialaspect . . . it gives them an opportunity to get out and meet and giggle and laugh and get away.

International Gambling Studies 247

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:21

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

In discussing meanings of gambling, some participants mentioned changes over time.

There was almost a consensus that gambling activities had altered noticeably during these

people’s lifetime.One obvious changewas increasing use of commercial gambling and hints

that social interaction was declining. One person’s recollection illustrates this transition:

Well I grew up in . . . I can remember my mum and my old nanna they used to go around tosomeone’s front or backyard and there’d be 40 or 50 of our black women there just all sittingaround, all the kids would be around as well and they’d be just playing bingo. From there . . .you’d hear of a card school . . . at one of my old aunty’s places and we’d be around there tillreal late probably about 11, 12 o’clock at night. It was more sort of a social thing back thenbut these days I think it’s more the pub and club scenes, sort of more money being thrownaway. It’s more the horse racing . . . Keno . . . poker machines . . . trying to get that quick bitof dough . . . that little bit of money just to make them a bit happier . . . most blackfellas likethat bit of extra money.

Although gambling can be associated with social networks, some gambling was used

for coping with stress. Several participants described stressors including pressure at home

or work as leading people to gambling to temporarily block out their problems: ‘Some

people will do it for the social interaction but other people will do it because of stress . . .

they believe it helps them to relax.’

For those experiencing high levels of social stress, such as living in an overcrowded

house with extended family members and their children, gambling provided some

relaxation or temporary respite. Gambling became an escape-based coping mechanism.

Both card and commercial gamblers sought escape in a social space where people gathered

but where the gambler tended to be isolated. Typical comments regarding card gamblers

were: ‘They’re in the comfort of someone’s house so they’re not down at the pub or a club

and they generally can settle in there whilst ever the games are going’ and ‘A form

of recreation and it’s a little escape and quite often you’ll hear people say “I’m going to go

and play some cards or I’ll go crazy”.’

General explanations about commercial gamblers who appeared to use gambling as an

escape indicated a search for balance in their lives by using gambling to reduce their high

levels of stress: ‘[Gamblers] they like it because . . . [it’s] a form of relaxation . . . they

work in a highly stressed job and nobody wants anything from you while they’re gambling

. . . they tune out’ and ‘Might be getting away from the family or they might be up for

the . . . draw and “I’ll go and have a couple of presses”.’

Winning aspects

Where gambling meant winning money, sub-themes included trying to win to increase

income and improve life. For those sharing collective hardship and exclusion through

structural inequity, trying to increase income through gambling is one strategy to try to

improve life quickly: ‘Looking at ways to try and better their lives. Make more money . . .

strike it rich, luck, but it also means . . . false hope certainly’ and ‘Everyone gambles to

win money . . . that’s one of the main reasons . . . you probably wouldn’t worry about it if

you didn’t have a chance of winning.’ Apart from the house advantage, random forms of

gambling offer opportunity to win with every bet. Thinking back on his childhood, one

person recalled:

I can remember as a child when most of the people played around my aunties’ places, I’ve gotnine aunties so they used to share it around . . . whoever held a card night they’d make a bit ofmoney out of that as well. So if there was a loss, they’d still sort of end up with a little bit ofgain . . . if one of the aunties won, this one here would be losing but before they go home at theend of the night they’d be slipping them a few dollars.

248 H. Breen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:21

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

For poker machine jackpots, the prize value is high or grows incrementally with every

game played. Additionally, several machines can be linked together, combining jackpot

totals. Thus, a win offers the possibility of a miracle in terms of realizing material dreams

and hopes: ‘Play the poker machines because . . . they think the jackpot’s there . . . the

opportunity to win lots of money . . . if a jackpot is up to around about $10,000 or maybe

more, they’ll try and see if they can get the big jackpot.’ General comments about big wins

were often tinged with reality:

[Gamblers] think they’re going to win big but it’s 1 in 10,000 or something that tend to win . . .the enticement of the link-up jackpots . . . they get sucked in from . . . the little pays they thinksomewhere along the line it’s going to come in.

Sharing common bonds of social and economic hardship often led to general feelings

of social exclusion: ‘Our people come from a poor background and they see it [gambling]

as a way to get that quick fix or to try to get ahead.’ Gambling holds out the hope and

opportunity of winning a lot of money in a short time, potentially changing one’s social

status and opening a world of wealth and equality: ‘There’s shame that comes with social

issues in our community and not thinking that we’re good enough . . . a lot of low

self-esteem, no confidence, lack of sense of belonging . . . we once were proud people.’

One participant explained how meanings of gambling were linked to social exclusion

and inequity by recalling his experiences of growing up in a poor community. He also

described some effects he saw with the introduction of poker machines into hotels across

the state in the mid-1990s:

Being an Aboriginal man . . . from a poor community, a poor family I think it was a way . . .of trying to get that quick fix, trying to provide for the family because historically we are verywelfare dependent and you’ll find a lot of Aboriginal communities and a lot of Aboriginalfamilies are that way today . . . and the way in which they try . . . to provide for the family,because there’s limited access to jobs and work . . . they go out and they try to either win thatbig one or get that trifecta or whatever . . . now what’s changed . . . they started putting pokiemachines in pubs. Clubs are a little bit harder to access for our people but once they openedit up and put poker machines in pubs and clubs, it’s just been a divide for our mob.

In contrast, one person suggested there were no differences between any groups

of people or any forms of gambling by saying ‘I think Aboriginal communities are no

different to any other parts of society and there are all different forms of gambling made

available to people.’

Continual financial distress

All respondents recognized negative aspects of gambling, particularly continual financial

hardship and related impacts such as personal distress, isolation, family problems and

weakened community links. Personal distress arose when the gambler was constantly

thinking about gambling, expecting to win. In time, this resulted in social isolation and

further harm:

Because they think they’re going to get lucky like win all the time. Every time they put somemoney in they think they’re going to win. They really actually lose especially if they’re putting$150 in and they only win $50 back. They think that’s a win.

He wouldn’t see his family that much because of the gambling. And the time that he has withthe family it’s thinking about where the next lot of money is coming from, or when the nextgamble is, or trying to make up lies about where the money’s gone. You can see it just adds upto a huge amount of pressure on him. And you can see why our mob go and hurtthemselves . . . for me personally it means destruction . . . I’ve got to press home the fact thatit causes a lot of destruction.

International Gambling Studies 249

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:21

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

For families, a problem gambler was often absent. Some children were increasingly

neglected and eventually became excluded from social activities due to a lack of funds:

‘Their family is seen as the “have-nots” of society. They’re always looking on it as others

are participating in things that they can’t go in because there’s no money to do that

anymore, it’s been spent.’ Family relationships were at risk of breaking down: ‘Kids see

what the parents do . . . finding that we’re always broke and we have to wait until next

fortnight . . . then they get annoyed with their parents . . . spending the money . . . so the

relationships start to crumble’ and ‘We’re all related in some way and we all know each

other and if that person is going down then it takes the family with them.’

Negative aspects of gambling were seen as weakening Indigenous community

networks. Community strength was reduced by low attendance at socially popular and

culturally important events. It was also tested by the burden of gambling losses rippling

through communities, ensuring everyone carried some portion of the load:

Our people were a people that liked to gather, the Elder’s term for it was corroborees, that wasjust a gathering of people . . . now with gambling, you don’t have the money to get to theevent. And we’ve got the Koori [football] Knockout coming up soon and the finances willdetermine whether people can go to that . . . they [gamblers] just can’t get there.

If it gets to the stage where it’s affecting their family and their family has to depend on otheragencies to assist them, well the burden it places on the agencies affect the community as awhole . . . it connects everyone into a poor place, if you know what I mean.

Yet this was countered by one respondent who explained how traditional Indigenous

sharing, reciprocity and sustained social networks would take care of this:

If someone gambles all their food money our mob will all bail each other out and buy it forthem and provide food for the family to have so they’re not left hungry so people don’t tend tohave to go without, they more or less look after each other.

Comparison of problem and recreational gambling

In comparing meanings of problem and recreational gambling, consideration was given to

the complexity of a being a member of a collective culture with traditional obligations.

One participant who was very familiar with structural issues surrounding Indigenous

housing, such as limited housing availability, difficulties faced by large families seeking

appropriate accommodation and obligations to share a house with extended family if they

were in need, reported that shared overcrowded housing can remove the usual security

control of leaving money safely at home. Thus, access to money in the pockets of problem

gamblers may facilitate gambling, and, more seriously, make it very difficult for recovery:

A problem gambler . . . has no limit, who gambles beyond their limits which leads you to anirresponsible area and I believe that if you want to gamble you only carry the money with youthat you can afford to gamble, but a lot of our people can’t leave money at home for reasonsother than just gambling . . . A lot of people share . . . their homes with other people . . .extended family . . . maybe it isn’t the safest spot . . . for people to leave their money. So theycarry it all on them and unless you’re a strong person who has a strong will you will just usethat money to do whatever you want to do with it.

Problem gamblers were identified as people for whom gambling takes precedence in

their lives, where their gambling participation, frequency and expenditure was usually high:

When they don’t realise that any form of win is good enough . . . that’s when it becomes aproblem, when you can’t drive past a TAB or you can’t drive past a poker machine and I guesson paydays when the first thing you do is go and have a gamble instead of doing the shopping,buy the essentials and that kind of stuff. That’s when it becomes a problem.

250 H. Breen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:21

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

People . . . have a portion of money and they want to try and double . . . or triple that . . . ifthey don’t win, they lose their bet then they’re always going to the bank . . . or they’re pullingout more money from their pocket to try and win more money and all of a sudden they findthat they’re behind the 8-ball.

Several contrasts were provided highlighting attitudinal and behavioural differences

between problem and recreational gambling with parallels drawn with alcohol use:

‘[Gambling,] it’s like the theory of alcohol, that most Aboriginals have got a problem with

alcohol. The majority of Aboriginal people don’t gamble to any great extent. It just seems

to be the same people all the time’.

It becomes a problem if they neglect to pay any of their bills that they want to go and have abet prior to doing that. If they pay their bills . . . and buy their food and . . . go and have a littlepunt . . . a lot of people do that.

Problem gambling was perceived as being very public and obvious but limited to a

small group. However, recreational gambling drew little public attention. Recreational

gambling was seen by most participants as being an occasional social activity in the sense

of congregating together, enjoying the company of others and spending money within

budget limits: ‘It’s just gambling to have a bit of fun and not necessarily something that

you do all the time but you might do it because you’re at the races or you’re caught up with

some friends at the pub or a club’ and ‘It depends on what you can afford . . . everyone’s

different depending on how much they bring in. Obviously if . . . they pay their bills

before they go and have a punt . . . that’s recreational’. Gambling participation, frequency

and expenditure was usually low as reported here:

Where someone plays now and again and has a flutter . . . just for the sake of enjoyment.If they go out and . . . put a couple of dollars in the poker machine, not as a regular thing,I’d consider that to be recreational.

Discussion

Participants in this research reported numerous meanings of Indigenous gambling

encompassing positive aspects of socializing and winning money, but also negative aspects

in continual financial distress. Meanings of gambling appear embedded in familiar cultural and

social networks. Gambling in a collective Indigenous group of family and friends sharing

common historical and cultural values is a finding somewhat similar to that for gambling by

Canadian First Nations groups (McGowan & Nixon, 2004; Williams et al., 2011). Although

self-interest is prominent – that is, to win money – gambling contributes value to Indigenous

social networks through social inclusiveness. Indigenous social networks, based on kinship ties,

are underpinned by responsibility for connections. Indigenous Australians are expected to

respect kinship bonds, care for others, and maintain harmony within and between spiritual

worlds (Martin, 2008). Thus, where gambling is solitary and less socially oriented, its

contribution to social networkswanes. Further,when gambling towin continually overshadows

social aspects and gambling expenditure increases, rising negative impacts weaken social

networks. This supports Coleman’s (1990) notion that social networks are depleted if not

renewed. Based on Bourdieu’s work (1989), a lack of investing in social exchanges is evident

where problem gambling becomes increasingly isolated and individualistic. In contrast,

recreational gambling, often a group activity reinforced through social exchanges over time,

was regarded as an occasional pastime with budgeted spending or a choice based on shared

values. Demonstrating aspects of both structural and cognitive elements of social capital

(McKenzie, 2002), gambling activities based on Indigenous social networks reflect some

collective cultural values of sharing and reciprocity.

International Gambling Studies 251

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:21

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Common behaviours and attitudes implicit in many Indigenous collective behaviours

(Randall, 2003) appear to underpin much Indigenous gambling. Indigenous social groups

who gamble together share mutual values and norms that encourage social inclusion and

cooperation, as theorized by Carroll & Stanfield (2003) and Putnam (2000). This contrasts

with more open social networks in the general population where minority groups may feel

socially excluded (Hunter, 2000). Being unable to negotiate any reduction in the structural

inequity they face (Atkinson, 2002; Woolcock &Narayan, 2000) and experiencing varying

degrees of discrimination (Martin, 2008; Phillips, 2003), some Indigenous Australians see

gambling as an opportunity to overcome disadvantage, supporting arguments that not

every gambler is privileged to act as a free agent (McGowan, 2004; McMillen, 2007).

The opportunity to win at gambling has both positive and negative aspects. Positive

aspects include extra money and enjoyment, reflecting earlier research findings (AHMRC,

2007; Altman, 1985; Goodale, 1987; McDonald & Wombo, 2006; Williams et al., 2011).

Negative aspects include continual financial hardship and its ripple effects which gradually

reduce bonds of cultural cooperation as people find it harder to support problem gamblers.

Financial hardship, neglect of family and community were reported previously for

Indigenous gamblers (AHMRC, 2007; Dickerson et al., 1996; Stevens & Young, 2009).

The values, beliefs and attitudes implicit in Indigenous kinship obligations seem

to falter for problem gamblers. Structural and cognitive elements of social capital

(McKenzie, 2002) appear devalued, thus diminishing the store of productive social capital.

Based on Bourdieu’s (1989) theory, these negative aspects of gambling signify lost social

capital for these individuals with lessened community participation, shared cultural values

and opportunity for meeting traditional obligations. Reducing social capital in Indigenous

communities, particularly those struggling with structural inequities, may lead to declining

social networks and weakening of traditional cultural bonds.

In this research, gambling as a recreational activity supports beneficial social networks

that maintain cultural values for those excluded from mainstream population networks.

Putnam (2000) maintains that close groups share more common features and more dense

networks than distant groups with sparse networks. Thus, solo gambling by individuals,

even when loosely connected to a social group, appears less productive and more isolating

from a social capital perspective. Despite debate about social capital (Bourdieu, 1989),

social networks based on shared Indigenous Australian cultural backgrounds sit at the

heart of this research.

How people reconcile kin responsibilities with personal interests remains a vexing

question, but one that is culturally complex for Indigenous Australians. Using Putnam’s

(2007) ideas, now may be a time of transition where gambling presents a challenge for

Indigenous community cohesion. Over a very long time, Putnam (2007) maintains that

communities overcome challenges by building a strong sense of ‘we’. ‘We’ is made up

of individuals surrounded by a network of people who can help them navigate the

complexities of contemporary gambling. These individuals and their networks, usually

kinship networks, appear to be better placed to engage with gambling in a controlled

manner. So, levels of social capital and membership of social networks may be crucial in

establishing contemporary gambling norms within Indigenous cultural systems. This could

well be the case now for Indigenous Australians who have been adapting and adjusting to

changing environments for over 40,000 years.

Certain limitations exist within this research. The sample is small and geographically

diverse. It consists of Indigenous community representatives, elected and nominated

leaders whose positions may inform their interpretation of Indigenous gambling in NSW,

even though all participants lived in their local regions. Additionally, efforts were made to

252 H. Breen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:21

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

include typical responses as the view of the participant’s community interacted with

personal experiences to reveal their historical and cultural conceptions of gambling.

Further research could extend and compare investigations into gambling and the role

of social capital with Indigenous people in NSW and other jurisdictions. Additional

research might focus on the contribution of social capital, or lack thereof, as a protective or

risk factor for Indigenous gamblers. Quantitative research may reveal population results

on aspects of social networks and gambling. A practical implication from this research is

to design and promote community-based gambling programmes based in existing social

networks in Indigenous communities. With other help, the challenge of raising gambling

awareness within Indigenous communities and dealing with gambling-related problems

may be assisted by the use of social networks.

Conclusion

In NSW, meanings of Indigenous gambling were based in the social activity of Indigenous

groups gambling together in social networks in the hope of an occasional win. In the main,

this contributed to creating and sustaining social capital. Other more problematic

meanings of gambling, especially always gambling to win, continued chasing of losses and

financial distress, detracted from these social networks. Comparisons between reported

problem and recreational gambling supported this finding, with a general decline in social

network strength accompanying problem gambling and a general increase in social

network density with recreational gambling. Gambling by some social groups appeared

to sit comfortably and positively within well-established Indigenous social networks

of mutual support. This could be due to the legacy of productive social capital being

embedded within cultural norms, values and traditions laid down around Indigenous

storytelling and card circles over time. This research has added depth to our understanding

of meanings of Indigenous gambling in revealing the importance of social networks for

Indigenous Australians in these regions of NSW. Some Indigenous gamblers use their

existing cultural and kin relationships on which many of their social networks are based to

gamble together in a controlled recreational manner.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the Australian Research Council for their funding of this research.We are very grateful for the support of our participants.

Notes

1. The authors are aware of the debate around titles used to describe Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Australians. Terms such as Indigenous, Aboriginal, Koori, Murri and Goori are usedin some areas. In this research, the terms Aboriginal, Indigenous, Indigenous Australian andAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (ATSI) are used interchangeably, dependingon information source.

2. A press is a colloquial word for gambling on a poker machine (AHMRC, 2007).

Notes on contributors

Helen Breen is a senior lecturer and Post Doctoral Fellow at the Centre for Gambling Education andResearch in the School of Tourism and Hospitality Management at Southern Cross University inLismore, NSW Australia. Her research interests are gambling by Indigenous peoples and populationsubgroups, public health policy and hospitality management.

International Gambling Studies 253

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:21

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Nerilee Hing is Professor and Director of the Centre for Gambling Education and Research in theSchool of Tourism and Hospitality Management at Southern Cross University in Lismore, NSWAustralia. Her research interests include problem gambling, responsible gambling, public healthmeasures in gambling, and gambling amongst vulnerable populations.

Ashley Gordon is a Kamiliroi Aboriginal man and researcher with the Centre for GamblingEducation and Research at Southern Cross University in Lismore, NSW Australia. His researchinterests are gambling by Indigenous Australians and Indigenous peoples, community engagement,education and support for Indigenous gamblers and their communities, and gambling policy.

Jeremy Buultjens is an Associate Professor and researcher with the Centre for Gambling Educationand Research in the School of Business at Southern Cross University in Lismore, NSW Australia.His research interests include Indigenous entrepreneurship, regional development, tourism inprotected areas, and employment relations.

References

Aboriginal Health & Medical Research Council of NSW. (2007). Pressing problems: Gamblingissues and responses for NSW Aboriginal communities. Sydney: Author.

Altman, J. (1985). Gambling as a mode of redistributing and accumulating cash among Aborigines:A case study from Arnhem Land. In G. Caldwell, B. Haig, D. Sylvan, & L. Sylvan (Eds.),Gambling in Australia (pp. 50–67). Sydney: Croom Helm.

Altman, J., & Smith, S. (1992). Aboriginal Australia: Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory.Canberra: Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and ATSIC.

Atkinson, J. (2002). Trauma trails recreating songlines: The transgenerational effects of trauma inIndigenous Australia. Melbourne: Spinifex Press.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). Population distribution: Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Australians, Catalogue No. 4705.0. Canberra: Author.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). The health and welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander Peoples: Catalogue No. 4704.0. Canberra: Author.

Belanger, Y. (2006). Gambling with the future: The evolution of Aboriginal gaming in Canada.Saskatoon, SK: Purich.

Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14–25.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 3, 77–101.Breen, H. (2008). Visitors to Northern Australia: Debating the history of Indigenous gambling.

International Gambling Studies, 8(2), 137–150.Breen, H., Hing, N., & Gordon, A. (2010). Exploring Indigenous gambling: Understanding

Indigenous gambling behaviour, consequences, risk factors and potential interventions.Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia.

Carroll, M., & Stanfield, J. (2003). Social capital, Karl Polanyi, and American social and institutionaleconomics. Journal of Economic Issues, 37, 397–404.

Christie, M., & Greatorex, J. (2009). Workshop report, regulated gambling and problem gamblingamong Aborigines from remote Northern Territory communities: A Yolgnu case study. Darwin:Charles Darwin University.

Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Cultural Perspectives Pty. Ltd. (2005). Problem gambling research report for Indigenous

communities. Melbourne: Victorian Department of Justice.Department of Aboriginal Affairs. (1981). Report on a review of the administration of the working

definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Canberra: Department of Aboriginal Affairs.Dickerson, M., Allcock, C., Blaszczynski, A., Nicholls, B., Williams, J., & Maddern, R. (1996).

A preliminary exploration of the positive and negative impacts of gambling and wagering onAboriginal people in NSW. Sydney: AIGR.

Dyall, L. (2010). Gambling: A poison chalice for indigenous peoples. International Journal ofMental Health and Addiction, 8, 205–213. doi:10.1007/s11469-009-9212-6

Fogarty, M. (2009). Submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into gambling. Submission106, Productivity Commission, Canberra Retrieved 20 November 2011 from http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/gambling-2009/submissions.

254 H. Breen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:21

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Geertz, C. (1983). Blurred genres: The reconfiguration of social thought. In C. Geertz (Ed.), Localknowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology (pp. 19–53). New York: HarperCollins.

Giddens, A. (1991).Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge,UK: Polity Press.

Glaskin, K. (2005). Innovation and ancestral revelation: The case of dreams. Journal of the RoyalAnthropological Institute, 4, 297–314.

Goodale, J. (1987). Gambling is hard work: Card playing in Tiwi society. Oceania, 58(1), 6–21.Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (2000). Analysing interpretive practice. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 487–508). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Hunter, B. (2000). Social exclusion, social capital and Indigenous Australians: Measuring the socialcosts of unemployment. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, AustralianNational University.

Hunter, B., & Spargo, R. (1988). What’s the big deal? Aboriginal gambling in the Kimberley region.Medical Journal of Australia, 149, 668–672.

Martin, D. (1993). Autonomy and relatedness: An ethnography of Wik people of Aurukun, WesternCape York Peninsula (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Australian National University,Canberra.

Martin, K. (2008). Please knock before you enter: Aboriginal regulation of Outsiders and theimplications for researchers. Brisbane: Post Pressed.

McDonald, H., & Wombo, B. (2006). Indigenous gambling scoping study: Draft report. Darwin:School for Social and Policy Research, Charles Darwin University.

McGowan, V. (2004). How do we know what we know? Epistemic tensions in social and culturalresearch on gambling 1980–2000. Journal of Gambling Issues, 11. Retrieved 20 June 2011 fromhttp://jgi.camh.net/doi/full/10.4309/jgi.2004.11.11

McGowan, V., & Nixon, G. (2004). Blackfoot traditional knowledge in resolution of problemgambling: Getting gambled and seeking wholeness. Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 24(1),7–35.

McKenzie, K. (2002). Social capital and mental health. British Journal of Psychiatry, 181, 280–283.McMillen, J. (2007). Cross-cultural comparisons. In G. Smith, D. Hodgins, & R. Williams (Eds.),

Research and measurement issues in gambling studies, Ch. 18 (pp. 465–489). Burlington, MA:Academic Press.

McMillen, J., & Donnelly, K. (2008). Gambling in Australian Indigenous communities: The stateof play. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 43(3), 397–426.

McMillen, J., Marshall, D., Murphy, L., Lorenzen, S., & Waugh, B. (2004). Help-seeking bygamblers, friends and families in the ACT: A focus on cultural and gender issues. Canberra:ACT Gambling and Racing Commission.

Ministry of Health. (2009). A focus on problem gambling: Results of the 2006/07 New Zealandhealth survey. Wellington: Ministry of Health.

Ohtsuka, K., & Ohtsuka, T. (2010). Vietnamese Australian gamblers’ views on luck and winning:Universal versus culture-specific schemas. Asian Journal of Gambling Issues and Public Health,1(1), 34–46.

Papineau, E. (2005). Pathological gambling in Montreal’s Chinese community: An anthropologicalperspective. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21, 157–178.

Phillips, G. (2003). Addictions and healing in Aboriginal country. Canberra: Aboriginal StudiesPress.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York:Simon & Schuster.

Queensland Department of Corrective Services. (2006). Houses of cards: Problem gambling,Indigenous communities and corrections. Brisbane: Queensland Government.

Randall, B. (2003). Songman, the story of an Aboriginal Elder. Sydney: ABC Books.Raylu, N., & Oei, T. (2004). Role of culture in gambling and problem gambling. Clinical

Psychological Review, 23(8), 1087–1114.Reith, G. (2007). Situating gambling studies. In G. Smith, D. Hodgins, & R. Williams (Eds.),

Research and measurement issues in gambling studies (pp. 3–29). Burlington, MA: AcademicPress.

Ridley, M. (1996). The origins of virtue: Human instincts and the evolution of cooperation. London:Penguin.

International Gambling Studies 255

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:21

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Smith, G. (2007). Preface. In G. Smith, D. Hodgins, & R. Williams (Eds.), Research andmeasurement issues in gambling studies (pp. xxvii–xxxiv). Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

Stevens, M., & Young, M. (2009). Reported gambling problems in the Indigenous and totalAustralian population. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia.

Westermeyer, J., Canive, J., Thuras, P., Thompson, J., Kim, S., Crosby, R., & Garrard, J. (2008).Mental health of non-gamblers versus “normal” gamblers among American Indian veterans:A community survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 193–205.

Williams, R., Stevens, R., & Nixon, G. (2011). Gambling and problem gambling in North AmericanAboriginal people. In Y. Belanger (Ed.), First Nations gambling in Canada: Current trends andissues (pp. 166–194). Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research,and policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–249.

Appendix 1

Open-ended questions guiding the interview

Based on your experiences of gambling and knowledge about your region, could you please talkabout the following:

What does the word ‘gambling’ mean to an Aboriginal person in Australia today?How has Aboriginal people’s involvement in gambling changed over the years?What activities do you consider to be gambling?What do you consider to be ‘problem gambling’? That is, what would an Aboriginal person’sgambling be like for you to consider him or her to be a ‘problem gambler’?Do you think there are many problem gamblers in your region?What do you consider to be ‘recreational gambling’? That is, what would an Aboriginal person’sgambling be like for you to consider him or her to be a ‘recreational gambler’?Do you think there are many recreational gamblers in your region?

256 H. Breen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:21

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14