The City of Port Phillip has been developing a ‘Responsible Gambling Policy‘, and and amendment is currently being worked on.
‘Amendment C88 proposes to introduce a revised Local Planning Policy into the Port Phillip Planning Scheme relating to Gaming. The proposed Local Planning Policy implements the land use strategies in the City of Port Phillip Responsible Gambling Policy.’ (from the report going to council on Monday)
Reading through the ‘Summary of submissions and officer responses‘, which will be going to the Ordinary Council Meeting on Monday night, I noticed an interesting discussion about measuring vulnerability.
Bayside is adopting a position whereby
‘Gaming venues should not be located within 500m of the 20% most disadvantaged communities identified by the SEIFA index.’
However, the City of Port Phillip officers do not recommend such a position.
‘While it would be desirable to align policies between municipalities, the SEIFA Index was not considered appropriate in Port Phillip as a means of identifying vulnerable communities as the density and mix of the residential population in Port Phillip creates a ‘dilution’ effect.’
Their position is:
‘Use of social housing / community services to define vulnerable communities
Social housing residents in the City of Port Phillip include a number of older people, people on low incomes, people living with disabilities, as well as for people at risk of homelessness. Residents in these facilities have many of the characteristics of people vulnerable to problem gambling. They also have lower incomes and would have limited financial resources to manage a gambling problem.
The SEIFA index is not considered appropriate in the Port Phillip context given the density and mix of the residential population creates a ‘dilution’ effect. This means that in one collector district there could be differences in advantage and disadvantage but this is not transparent in the SEIFA index which represents an average rating.