Overview

This report is based on the National Gambling Trends Study 2023 consumer survey (NGTS) – an online survey held between July and September 2023 with Australian adults who gambled on pokies (also called poker machines or electronic gambling machines (EGMs)) on a regular basis (at least monthly). These individuals were asked about their most recent pokies gambling session and assessed for risk of harm related to their gambling. This report considers how this evidence could inform policies that aim to reduce gambling harm by limiting time, spending or access to pokies.

About the National Gambling Trends Study

Purpose

This is the third release of findings from the National Gambling Trends Study 2023 (NGTS), which is conducted annually by the Australian Gambling Research Centre (AGRC) at the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS).

The aim of the NGTS is to present timely information on recent trends, emerging issues and possible future directions in gambling participation and related harms in Australia. The information is relevant for gambling policy makers and regulators, service providers, researchers and the broader community. Through the dissemination of the NGTS, the AGRC aims to support the development and implementation of evidence-based approaches to prevent and reduce gambling-related harm in Australia.

Methods

The NGTS 2023 included a consumer survey conducted online between July and September 2023 with a convenience sample of Australian adults who gambled using poker machines (pokies) in land-based venues at least once a month during the previous 12 months (N = 2,565). The median survey completion time was 18 minutes. Table 1 provides details on the demographics of the sample.

Focus of this report

This report aims to inform the design of policies intended to reduce gambling harm by partially limiting time and expenditure on and access to poker machines. We focus on 3 specific policies that have been considered in various states and territories:

1. intervention based on poker machine gambling duration
2. load up limits on poker machines
3. mandatory closing times for venues with poker machines.

This report considers how these policies can be designed in a way that focuses on behaviours that are common among individuals who are at higher risk of gambling harm but relatively uncommon among those who gamble regularly but remain at low or no risk from gambling.

The NGTS 2023 included questions about when and how respondents gambled during their most recent pokies session. This report considers whether certain characteristics of these pokies sessions were more common among individuals who are at a higher risk of gambling harm, relative to individuals who gamble regularly but are at lower risk.

Reports

This research summary is 3 of 3 published for the 2023 release of the NGTS. The full suite includes:

1. Regular online bettors in Australia, 2023
2. Consumer perspectives on online betting: Trends in harm minimisation, advertising and normalisation, 2023
3. What characteristics of pokies gambling sessions are associated with higher-risk gambling? 2023

Sample characteristics

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of NGTS 2023 consumer survey respondents that reported regular gambling on the pokies

Notes: Percentages are rounded and may not sum to 100.0% for the variables State/Territory, Age, and Gender. Approximately 1.64% of respondents answered ‘Not sure’ or entered an invalid postcode to determine Location. All other variables were measured independently.

Gambling harm and risk

Among this sample of Australian adults who regularly gambled using poker machines (i.e. at least monthly), almost 9 in 10 (87.4%) met the criteria for at-risk gambling, and almost half of this group were classified as ’high-risk’ gamblers (43.2% of all regular pokies gamblers) (see Table 2).

Table 2: Classification of Australian adults who regularly gamble on pokies according to the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI)

Notes: Respondents with missing data on 1 or more PGSI items were excluded from calculations (n = 157; 6.1%)

High-risk gambling is more common among people who gamble regularly. Available prevalence estimates suggest the national rate of high-risk gambling is typically around 1%, or around 2% for people who have gambled in the past 12 months (Armstrong & Carroll, 2018; Hing et al., 2021). Recent estimates derived from the 2015, 2018 and 2022 waves of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey suggest that the prevalence of high-risk gambling has remained relatively steady in recent years (Department of Social Services & Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, 2024). Among individuals who gamble more frequently, the prevalence of high-risk gambling is typically much higher. For example, a recent study of NSW residents found that 30.5% of individuals who gamble weekly or more were at moderate or high risk of gambling harm (Browne et al., 2024).

The level of high-risk gambling also tends to be higher among people who use poker machines, which have a heightened risk profile relative to other popular forms of gambling such as lotteries (Browne et al., 2023; Delfabbro et al., 2020; Dowling et al., 2005). Therefore, the higher proportion of individuals reporting high-risk gambling in this sample likely reflects both these individuals’ tendency to gamble frequently as well as their regular engagement with poker machines specifically.

Reflections for gambling policy

This report focuses on 3 gambling harm reduction policies that aim to shape or limit the way poker machines are made available in Australia:

1. intervention based on poker machine gambling duration
2. load up limits on poker machines
3. mandatory closing times for venues with poker machines.

We provide a brief review of these gambling policies and consider how the NGTS 2023 findings can inform the design of these policies to target pokies gamblers who are at higher risk of gambling harm while limiting the impact on those who are at low or no risk.

When reading this report, it is essential to keep in mind that the NGTS 2023 was not designed to provide representative population estimates of gambling participation or gambling harm in Australia. The NGTS 2023 intentionally recruited adults who gamble regularly (at least monthly) on poker machines in venues, leading to higher observed rates of gambling-related consequences. These data allow us to investigate the experiences of regular pokies gamblers, who are more likely to experience harm and be affected by changes to gambling policies. The vast majority of Australians either do not use poker machines or do so less often than once a month (Armstrong & Carroll, 2018; Browne et al., 2024; Hing et al., 2021).

Intervention based on poker machine gambling duration

Background

There have been 4 major investigations in the past 4 years into the casino operators Star Entertainment Group and Crown. These were through 2 royal commissions in Victoria (Finkelstein, 2021) and Western Australia (Owen et al., 2022), and 2 independent reviews in New South Wales (Bell, 2022) and Queensland (Gotterson, 2022).

All 4 investigations recommended introducing, and more strictly enforcing, limits on the length of poker machine gambling sessions permitted at casinos. Specific recommendations included that:

• Patrons must take a break of at least 15 minutes after 3 hours of continuous gambling.
• Patrons who had gambled for 12 hours in any 24-hour period must be prevented from further gambling for a full 24 hours.

The recommended 12-hour limit was based on pre-existing codes of practice at Crown. These codes were not informed by research but based on what appeared to be ‘common sense’ to Crown’s Responsible Service of Gambling Team (Finkelstein, 2021, p. 54; Owen et al., 2022, p. 705).

The recommended introduction of a mandatory break after 3 hours was guided by research that gambling for 3 or more hours without a break is a reliable indicator for identifying high-risk gambling behaviour in venues (Delfabbro et al., 2007; Thomas et al., 2014). More recent research has identified that 40 minutes of poker machine gambling provides the best distinction between individuals who had experienced gambling harm¹ and those who had not (Dowling et al., 2022).

Evidence from the NGTS 2023

NGTS respondents were asked to estimate the total duration of their most recent pokies gambling session. Table 3 reports on the average duration of the most recent session by gambling risk status, as measured by the PGSI, along with the proportions of respondents gambling for more than 45 minutes, more than 90 minutes, 3 hours or more, and 12 hours or more. Respondents were also asked to report whether their most recent pokies session was at a hotel or pub (46.0% indicated this was the venue of their last session), a club (43.2%) or a casino (17.4%).²

Respondents at high risk of harm from gambling had a longer median session length (2 hours) than those at moderate risk (1 hour) and those at low or no risk (45 minutes).

Extended sessions were more common among individuals at higher risk of gambling harm. For example, more than one-third of respondents at high risk (36.2%) reported the duration of their most recent session as 3 or more hours, compared to less than 1 in 10 respondents at low or no risk (8.5% and 9.8% respectively). Similar trends were seen for other session lengths.

Table 3: Duration of most recent pokies gambling session, by gambling risk status

Notes: Respondents were asked, ‘Thinking about the last time you spent money on the pokies at a venue, how long did you gamble for on the pokies that session?’ All calculations exclude 157 respondents with missing data on 1 or more PGSI items and 111 respondents who responded ‘Can’t say/can’t recall’. After these exclusions, 2,297 respondents were retained (including 285 non-risk, 366 low risk, 664 moderate risk, and 982 high risk). Mean pokies session duration excludes an additional 58 respondents who reported their session duration was ‘24 hours or more’. Most of these cases were high risk (n = 45; 4.58%) or moderate risk (n = 10; 1.51%), rather than low (n = 2; 0.55%) or non-risk (n = 1, 0.35%). All other metrics include respondents who reported gambling for 24 hours or more.

Key insights

Most of the gambling sessions reported by NGTS respondents, including those at high risk of gambling harm, would not be affected by a policy that required a break after 3 hours. Less than 1 in 10 gamblers at no or low risk gambled 3 or more hours in their most recent pokies session, increasing to less than 4 in 10 for those at high risk of gambling harm.

Intervening earlier might provide a better balance between the impact for those who would benefit from a short break and maintaining a relatively low rate of interruption for those at lower or no risk. For example, an intervention after 90 minutes would have engaged with a majority of NGTS respondents at high risk of gambling harm (61.1%), while avoiding interruption for most of those at lower or no risk of gambling harm (24.9% and 22.1% respectively who had sessions over 90 minutes).

Looking forward

Given that the vast majority of expenditure on poker machines occurs in clubs, pubs and hotels, the introduction of interventions based on pokies session length should be considered for all venue types, rather than being limited to casinos alone. In 2022–23, Australians lost $15.8 billion gambling on poker machines in clubs, pubs and hotels (Queensland Government Statistician’s Office, 2024). This figure is more than 4 times the total reported loss of $3.6 billion in Australian casinos, the latter figure combining all gambling activities offered in casinos including pokies. Similarly, of the 185,933 poker machines operating in Australia in June 2023, the majority were in either clubs (56.0%) or hotels (36.9%) rather than casinos (7.1%) (Queensland Government Statistician’s Office, 2024). Our data show a similar pattern, with the majority of NGTS 2023 respondents reporting their most recent pokies session was in a club, pub or hotel and not a casino.

Additionally, the implementation of policies to limit session duration often relies on human intervention. In NSW, a recent casino inquiry heard that multiple staff had failed to intervene on multiple occasions to prevent patrons from gambling for more than 3 continuous hours without the required break period (Bell, 2024). This inquiry also heard that some of these staff had then falsified records to wrongly state that an intervention had occurred. Previous academic investigations have also reported that gambling venues in Melbourne, Victoria, often failed to follow responsible gambling practices outlined in their codes of conduct, including requirements to provide active support to individuals who show signs of high-risk gambling (Rintoul et al., 2017).

The introduction of mandatory card-based gambling systems can support the automated identification of and intervention for patrons who have gambled for extended periods of time on poker machines. While the system employed at Star sends automated alerts to staff members following longer session times (Star Entertainment Group, 2023), the system is ultimately dependent on individual staff to ‘locate the guest to recommend a break and check on their wellbeing’. The introduction of an automated time-out for any account holder who exceeds a mandated limit could act as a fall-back in instances where human intervention fails.

Further research is needed on how to design interventions based on session duration so that they are acceptable to the community and effective in reducing harm. Recent evidence, including from our data, indicates that earlier intervention may be more appropriate. However, research is needed to determine how the invasiveness of an intervention (for instance, a short break relative to a hard limit) should be combined with different pokies gambling periods. For example, one option could be to scale the invasiveness of the intervention as cumulative time spent gambling increases.

Load up limits for poker machines

Background

Current and proposed policies in respect to the amount of money that can be loaded into a poker machine at one time (often called ‘load up limits’) vary widely across states and territories (see Table 4). These policies aim to combat money laundering by limiting large cash deposits in gambling environments and to mitigate risky gambling behaviours and reduce gambling harm. Where there are load up limits in place, the lowest currently in operation is $99.99 in South Australia.

In 2010, the Productivity Commission proposed that all Australian jurisdictions introduce load up limits of $20 to poker machines to reduce gambling harm (Productivity Commission, 2010). The rationale was that a smaller load up limit would cause high-intensity pokies gamblers to exhaust their credit balance more quickly, requiring them to take a break to either insert another banknote or visit an ATM. This short break during a gambling session would also prompt the gambler to make an active decision or reflect on their spending. The Productivity Commission also noted that $20 load up limits would minimally impact lower risk gamblers because these individuals tend to use lower denomination bank notes and smaller credit balances.

Table 4: Current and proposed policies to limit the maximum amount that can be loaded into a poker machine at a time, by state and territory

Source: All information sourced from the Australian/New Zealand Gaming Machine Standard (2022), unless cited otherwise

Evidence from the NGTS 2023

The most common maximum load up amount that NGTS respondents reported during their most recent pokies gambling session was $50 (32.0%), followed by $100 (16.1%) and $20 (14.1%).

The proportion of regular pokies gamblers who reported larger maximum load up amounts (over $50) was higher for those at higher risk of gambling harm (see Figure 1). Around 58% of high-risk gamblers loaded up more than $50, compared to around 22% of low-risk gamblers and 14% of non-risk gamblers. Conversely, the proportion of non-risk gamblers who reported that their largest load up amount was $20 or less (47.9%) was more than 4 times that of high-risk gamblers (11.5%).

Figure 1: Largest load up amounts reported by regular pokies gamblers during their most recent pokies session, by gambling risk status

Notes: Respondents were asked, ‘What was the most money you loaded into the poker machine at any single time that day? (If you are unsure, please make your best guess.)’ All calculations exclude 157 respondents with missing data on 1 or more PGSI items and a further 204 respondents who reported ‘Can’t say/can’t recall’. After these exclusions 2,204 respondents were retained (including 284 non risk, 356 low risk, 642 moderate risk and 922 high risk).

Key insights

The NGTS 2023 data provides evidence that reducing maximum load up limits for poker machines from their current high values (see Table 4) to lower values of between $20 and $50 would have a targeted impact on high-risk pokies gamblers relative to those at lower risk of gambling harm.

Looking forward

There is a need for further research to identify the point at which load limits become effective at minimising harm. The rationale for this policy is that limits must be set low enough to prompt frequent reflection on whether to continue gambling and that any reflection should be prior to harmful spending.

Mandatory closing times for venues with poker machines

Background

Victoria recently introduced mandatory closing times between 4 am and 10 am for hotels and clubs with pokies (Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, 2024). NSW also requires a 6-hour shutdown period between 4 am and 10 am, although venues can apply for a variation to reduce this to a 3-hour period between 6 am and 9 am (NSW Liquor & Gaming, 2021).

Other Australian states and territories have not mandated closing hours for venues with pokies. Licences in these jurisdictions can still place limitations on opening hours for single venues. However, without uniform requirements, neighbouring venues can stagger their opening hours to allow patrons to move between venues to avoid closures.

Researchers and gambling harm reduction advocates have argued that mandatory closing times for venues with pokies should be introduced or extended to be between midnight and 10 am (Alliance For Gambling Reform, 2022; Ore, 2023; Sakata & Greer, 2023). These recommendations highlighted that the evidence supporting the closure of venues with pokies between 4 am and 10 am also indicated that gambling between 12 am and 4 am is more common among those at high risk.

Evidence from the NGTS 2023

The NGTS respondents were asked in which of the 8 time windows over a 24-hour period their most recent pokies gambling session had occurred. Overall, the most common time of day for a pokies gambling session was between 6 pm and 9 pm (43.4% of sessions were during these hours). The least common gambling periods were between the hours of 4 am and 7 am (4.8%) and 7 am and 10 am (5.5%), while 10.1% of pokies sessions occurred between midnight and 4 am.

The greatest relative differences between regular pokies gamblers at higher and lower levels of risk of gambling harm were seen in the early morning periods (see Figure 2). For example, the proportion of high-risk gamblers reporting their most recent session was between 7 am and 10 am was 4 times that of non- or low-risk gamblers (9.5% compared to 2.3% and 2.1%), with a similar ratio reported for the period of 4 am to 7 am. Between the hours of midnight and 4 am, this ratio was around 3:1 (15.0% compared to 5.0% and 4.0%).

Figure 2: Times of day that regular pokies gamblers reported gambling during their most recent pokies session, by gambling risk status

Notes: Respondents were asked, ‘What times of the day did you gamble on the pokies during that session? (Select all that apply.)’ All calculations exclude 157 respondents with missing data on 1 or more PGSI items and a further 21 respondents who reported ‘Can’t say/can’t recall’. After these exclusions, 2,387 respondents were retained (including 299 non-risk, 375 low risk, 683 moderate risk and 1,030 high risk).

Key insights

The data for NGTS 2023 were collected around a year prior to the introduction of new mandatory venue closing hours in Victoria between 4 am and 10 am. This decision was partly rationalised on the basis that gambling during these hours is much more common among people at high risk from gambling than it is for those at lower risk.

Consistent with previous research, the findings presented here support the evidence that gambling between 4 am and 10 am is more common among individuals at high risk of gambling harm compared to those at lower risk (Greer et al., 2023; Stevens & Roy Morgan Research, 2023). This evidence also suggests that a similar rationale could be extended to the hours between midnight and 4 am.

References

Casino Control and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, § Schedule 1 Section 73A (2023).

Alliance For Gambling Reform. (2022). Opening Hours Policy Paper. Alliance For Gambling Reform.

Armstrong, A., & Carroll, M. (2018). Gambling activity in Australia. Australian Gambling Research Centre, Australian Institute of Family Studies. aifs.gov.au/agrc/publications/gambling-activity-australia

Australian New Zealand Gaming Machine National Standard – Revision 11.1. (2022). Retrieved from www.publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/de9729aa-0788-4798-8a07-0daea2d22474/resource/c16cb25e-ed53-4739-9ded-e3510d0ac71d/download/australian-new-zealand-gaming-machine-national-standard-revision-11.1.pdf

Bell, A. (2022). Review of The Star Pty Ltd: Report of the Inquiry under sections 143 and 143A of the Casino Control Act 1992 (NSW). Volume 1. New South Wales Government. www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-09/Review%20of%20The%20Star%20Pty%20Ltd%2C%20Report%2C%20Volume%201.pdf

Bell, A. (2024). 2024 Inquiry into the Star Pty Ltd: Report of the Inquiry under sections 143 and 143A of the Casino Control Act 1992 (NSW). Volume 1. New South Wales Government.

Browne, M., Delfabbro, P., Thorne, H. B., Tulloch, C., Rockloff, M. J., Hing, N. et al. (2023). Unambiguous evidence that over half of gambling problems in Australia are caused by electronic gambling machines: Results from a large-scale composite population study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 12(1), 182–193. doi.org/10.1556/2006.2022.00083

Browne, M., Russell, A. M. T., Dellosa, G., Rockloff, M., & Hing, N. (2024). NSW gambling survey 2024. Commissioned by the NSW Responsible Gambling Fund. Central Queensland University.

Delfabbro, P., King, D. L., Browne, M., & Dowling, N. A. (2020). Do EGMs have a stronger association with problem gambling than racing and casino table games? Evidence from a decade of Australian prevalence studies. Journal of Gambling Studies, 36(2), 499–511. doi.org/10.1007/s10899-020-09950-5

Delfabbro, P., Osborn, A., Nevile, M., Skelt, L., & McMillen, J. (2007). Identifying problem gamblers in gambling venues: Final report. Report prepared for Gambling Research Australia.

Department of Social Services & Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic And Social Research. (2024). The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, general release 23 (Waves 1–23) [Dataset]. ADA Dataverse. doi.org/10.26193/NBTNMV

Dowling, N. A., Smith, D., & Thomas, T. (2005). Electronic gambling machines: Are they the ‘crack cocaine’ of gambling? Addiction, 100, 33–45. doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00962.x

Dowling, N. A., Youssef, G. J., Greenwood, C., Merkouris, S. S., Suomi, A., & Room, R. (2022). The identification of low-risk gambling limits for specific gambling activities. Journal of Gambling Studies, 38(2), 559–590. doi.org/10.1007/s10899-021-10036-z

Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

Finkelstein, R. (2021). Report of the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence. Victorian Government. www.rccol.vic.gov.au/volume-1

Gotterson, R. W. (2022). External Review of the Queensland Operations of the Star Entertainment Group Limited. Queensland Government.

Greer, N., Jenkinson, R., Vandenberg, B., & Sakata, K. (2023). Regular pokies gambling in Australia, 2022: National Gambling Trends Study. Australian Gambling Research Centre, Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Hing, N., Russell, A., Browne, M., Rockloff, M., Greer, N., Rawat, V. et al. (2021). The second national study of interactive gambling in Australia (2019-20). Gambling Research Australia. www.gamblingresearch.org.au/sites/default/files/2021-10/Interactive%20Gambling%20Study.pdf

Liquor & Gaming, NSW. (2023, June 23). Cash input limits for electronic gaming machines to be reduced (Press release) (New South Wales, Australia). www.liquorandgaming.nsw.gov.au/news-and-media/cash-input-limits-for-electronic-gaming-machines-to-be-reduced

Markham, F., & Suomi, A. (2024). Gambling reform in the ACT, 2016–2024: What impact on gaming machine expenditure? Canberra, ACT: Australian National University, POLIS Centre for Indigenous Policy Research. doi.org/10.25911/F20V-QN06

McGuire, A. (2024, August 9). NSW may give reprieve to cash in casinos after Star boss plea. The Sydney Morning Herald. 
www.smh.com.au/business/companies/nsw-may-give-reprieve-to-cash-in-casinos-after-star-boss-plea-20240807-p5k0ay.html

Melissa Horne, Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation. (2024). Next step in landmark reforms to reduce gambling harm (Press release). www.premier.vic.gov.au/next-step-landmark-reforms-reduce-gambling-harm

Melissa Horne, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation. (2022). Nation-leading laws passed to hold Crown to account (Press release). www.premier.vic.gov.au/nation-leading-laws-passed-hold-crown-account

NSW Liquor & Gaming. (2021, February 16). Gaming machine shutdown periods (New South Wales, Australia). www.liquorandgaming.nsw.gov.au/operating-a-business/running-your-business/managing-gaming-machines/gaming-machine-shutdown-periods

Ore, A. (2023, July 17). ‘Should be closed after midnight’: Experts warn 4am pokies closures in Victoria will do little to stop harm. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/18/pokies-4am-closing-time-victoria

Owen, N., Jenkins, C., & Murphy, C. (2022). Perth Casino Royal Commission: Final report. Government of Western Australia. www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2022-03/PCRC%20Final%20Report%20Digital_FINAL%20%28Master%29_0.pdf

Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling: Productivity Commission Inquiry Report (No. 50; pp. 1–38). Productivity Commission, Australian Government. doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6612.2011.00548.x

Queensland Government Statistician’s Office. (2024). Australian gambling statistics, product tables (39th ed.). Queensland Treasury.

Rintoul, A., Deblaquiere, J., & Thomas, A. (2017). Responsible gambling codes of conduct: Lack of harm minimisation intervention in the context of venue self-regulation. Addiction Research & Theory, 25(6), 451–461. doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2017.1314465

Sakata, K., & Greer, N. (2023). Pokies shut-down times should be based on evidence. aifs.gov.au/resources/news-and-events/pokies-shut-down-times-should-be-based-evidence

Star Entertainment Group. (2023). Sustainability report FY 23: Responsible business sustainable destinations. www.starentertainmentgroup.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-Star-Entertainment-Group-Sustainability-Report.pdf

Stevens, M., & Roy Morgan Research. (2023). Impact of electronic gaming machine (EGM) late night play on EGM player behaviours. Commissioned by the NSW Responsible Gambling Fund.

Tasmanian Liquor and Gaming Commission. (2023). Tasmanian appendix to the Australian and New Zealand Gaming Machine National Standard. Tasmanian Liquor and Gaming Commission.

Thomas, A., Delfabbro, P., & Armstrong, A. (2014). Validation study of in-venue problem gambler indicators. Report prepared for Gambling Research Australia.

Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission. (2024, December 13). Gaming hours. www.vgccc.vic.gov.au/for-gambling-providers/venue-operators-and-poker-machines/venue-operator-obligations/accounting-and-auditing-venue-requirements/gaming-hours

Acknowledgements

The Australian Gambling Research Centre (AGRC) was established under the Commonwealth Gambling Measures Act 2012. Our gambling research program reflects the Act, embodies a national perspective and has a strong family focus. Our work forms part of the functions of the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS).

Feautured image: © gettyimages/Welcomia

¹While the earlier studies identified harmful gambling as the ‘high-risk or problem’ gamblers measured by the PGSI (score 8+), Dowling et al. (2022) used the less conservative threshold of harmful gambling as experiencing 2 or more gambling harms, which would include gamblers at the ‘low-risk’ level of gambling harm and above (see Dowling’s paper for more detail).

 ²Some sessions extended across multiple venues so percentages sum to more than 100.0%. 1.6% responded ‘prefer not to say’.