This article draws on a three-year collaborative research project investigating how community consultation is practised by Victorian councils, especially in relation to multiple publics and groups that councils can find 'hard to reach'. Based on an analysis of consultation documents, this article looks at councils' understanding of community consultation and underlying assumptions, the expected outcomes and how this is translated into guidance for practice. The research demonstrates that councils aim to consult to provide a range of outcomes, but there is a lack of clarity about how to choose and use the appropriate combination of consultation tool(s) and public(s) to facilitate these. Councils are also unclear about how the outcomes of consultation feed into existing decision-making processes and the implications of this for democratic legitimacy. This is in part due to the fact that the conceptual tensions around consultation and the democratic process are apparent not so much by virtue of what is said about them, but of what is not said. The article begins by outlining the conceptual and definitional problems associated with consultation using typologies of public participation. We investigate how typologies inform the consultation documents developed by councils and in how far they support practice. We then address the need to involve multiple publics and the vexed issue of who is hard to reach and why they should be consulted.

Accessibility to gambling has been linked to gambling behaviour but remains poorly understood. This study used data from semi-structured focus groups and interviews with 38 participants (Median age 42 years) to explore wider aspects of accessibility. People preferred venues which were open long hours and located close to home, work or regular routes, i.e., geo-temporal accessibility. This was particularly influential for problem gamblers. Social and personal accessibility related to venues as safe, social, easy entertainment experiences, and as an accessible retreat from life issues. The attraction of an accessible retreat was restricted to problem gamblers. Finally, low outlay games and easy access to money increased financial accessibility. Accessibility should therefore be considered multidimensional. Further, results suggested that while gambling as safe, social entertainment may be relatively harmless, the attraction of geo-temporal accessibility and a retreat from problems may encourage excessive gambling in some individuals.

No abstract

Geographic closeness of gambling venues is not the only aspect of accessibility likely to affect gambling frequency. Perceived accessibility of gambling venues may include other features such as convenience (e.g., opening hours) or "atmosphere". The aim of the current study was to develop a multidimensional measure of gamblers' perceptions of accessibility, and present evidence for its reliability and validity. We surveyed 303 gamblers with 43 items developed to measure different dimensions of accessibility. Factor analysis of the items produced a two factor solution. The first, Social Accessibility related to the level at which gambling venues were enjoyed because they were social places, provided varying entertainment options and had a pleasant atmosphere. The second factor, Accessible Retreat related to the degree to which venues were enjoyed because they were geographically and temporally available and provided a familiar and anonymous retreat with few interruptions or distractions. Both factors, developed as reliable subscales of the new Gambling Access Scale, demonstrated construct validity through their correlations with other gambling-related measures. Social Accessibility was moderately related to gambling frequency and amount spent, but not to problem gambling, while, as hypothesised, Accessible Retreat was associated with stronger urges to gamble and gambling problems.

This paper describes a social policy experiment that explores current and potential links between trends in Australian public policy. The central example is provided by the implementation of a wired community set up in a low-income public housing estate by an entrepreneurial not-for-profit internet service provider, InfoXchange. 'Reach for the Clouds', the wired community being established at Atherton Gardens in Fitzroy, Melbourne, is attractive to policy-makers and funding bodies, combining community-building, public-private partnerships, self-help and place-based management. However, although the project is promoted as an exercise in community-building through technology, many of the key assumptions are untested. It seems self-evident that low-income people who are socially and economically excluded would benefit from greater 'connectedness' with one another. However, it is not clear that such exchanges, online or off-line, will build 'community'. The paper attempts to establish some distinctions between online communities of interest and place based communities, untangling the relationship between social connectedness and models of social capital.