Presentation by the SA Responsible Gambling Foundation (SARGF)

June 2015

Dr Adele Pretorius (MA Clinical Psychology, PhD)Treatment Director, NRGP

Presentation by the SA Responsible Gambling Foundation (SARGF)

June 2015

Dr Adele Pretorius (MA Clinical Psychology, PhD)Treatment Director, NRGP

IntroductionIntroduction

• Remote gambling vs land-based gambling

• Growing in South Africa but still a small percentage of the total – unauthorised jurisdictions make it widely available

• Less about whether to permit it; more about how to regulate and minimise harm

• most South Africans do not know it is illegal• almost impossible to enforce• we are not unique in the world – many other jurisdictions have faced the

same dilemma

Potential dangers of remote gamblingPotential dangers of remote gambling

Gambling becomes more risky and “problem gambling” stimulated when it offers opportunities for:

• continuous, “rapid action” play• high stakes• high and frequent prizes• convenience gambling (discourages planning/budgeting for gambling

and encourages impulsive gambling• gambling whenever, on whatever, for any amount, to people who are

relatively ignorant of how gambling works, the dangers and avoiding them

From all these points of view: • remote gambling via the internet or other technologies, especially when

unregulated, is maximally risky from the point of view of encouraging problem gambling

• Even so, no reason to believe that the majority of remote gamblers, like land-based gamblers, will not do so in a sensible and responsible way.

• International consensus is that about 1% of adults in populations are full-blown gambling addicts; 4% gamble excessively to the point where they do significant damage to themselves

• Research conducted here suggests that South African numbers are broadly in line with these international norms

Potential dangers of remote gamblingPotential dangers of remote gambling

• Internet gambling is the form of gambling which makes it easiest to require operators to put in place safety measures likely to discourage people from gambling excessively, i.e.

• prominent links to websites where players can • self-test for gambling problems• receive education about how to gamble safely• be put in touch with internet counselling facilities as well as being

given the NRGP free counselling line number for free assistance

• Operators can offer players a facility for setting limits to losses over a given time period after which they are automatically prevented from playing further

• Software can detect patterns of play characteristic of problem gamblers and alert players accordingly

Potential dangers of remote gamblingPotential dangers of remote gambling

Legislative and regulatory optionsLegislative and regulatory options

• Regulation is most unlikely to eliminate remote gambling at offshore sites since there are many ways around the banking and ISP restrictions

• In general, the consequence of prohibition is to ensure that the prohibited goods and services are provided illegally, often by organised crime

• Prohibition normally favoured on moral/religious grounds or by land-based casinos hoping to protect their businesses

• Alternative to prohibition is a free market – but not even in Las Vegas is it completely free.

• However, a free market it is what results when any form of e-commerce, including gambling, is left unregulated and something close to a free market in gambling services is what we currently have on the internet

• Only large jurisdiction in the developed world so far to have legalised and devised regulations for remote gambling is the UK (effective 2007)

• UK taxes remote gambling at the same rate as other forms of gambling

• Most other European jurisdictions are seeking to prohibit “foreigners” from supplying internet gambling services to their citizens even though this has been found to contravene EU law

Legislative and regulatory optionsLegislative and regulatory options

• If Parliament rejects both prohibition and a free market, then the principles which govern the legalisation and regulation of land-based gambling should apply to remote gambling:

• Whether to permit it, how much and what type, decided through democratic processes - government leads and responds to public opinion

• governments should ensure that the potential negative social impacts are minimised

• governments should protect minors, ensure that consumer choices are adequately informed and require industry to do all that it reasonably can do to minimise the incidence of, and harm caused by excessive gambling

• governments should seek to secure some benefits for the general public• while respecting religious and other convictions, governments should insist

in a free society individuals must be free to decide for themselves • governments should not disturb legitimate existing interests save for good

cause shown• governments should ensure laws are enforceable because if they aren’t, this

undermines respect for the law in general.

Legislative and regulatory optionsLegislative and regulatory options

International researchInternational research

Few studies on internet gambling have been conducted and published.

•GamCare (UK) - 34% of callers had problems with the internet. •18% used the internet as their primary location in 2011, this rose to 23% in 2012. More than 20% of the callers were under 18. •Women increasingly gambling

•European Journal of Public Health (March 2015) - greater overall involvement in gambling appears to be predictive of harm. Multiple internet gambling account holders more involved gamblers, gambling on more activities and more frequently, and had higher rates of gambling problems than single account holders.

•Australian study - Journal of Medical Internet Research in 2015 - problem Internet gamblers were significantly more likely than problem land-based gamblers to be male, younger, have lower psychological distress and experience problems with sports and race wagering. Used help facilities less than land-based gambler.

RecommendationsRecommendations

• The NRGP is gambling-neutral

• Believe it is a matter which should be left to individual choice unless there are very compelling reasons for using the law to restrict people’s freedom of choice

• Believe that although remote gambling is not yet a serious source of gambling problems in SA, it may well become one

• this is more likely to happen if internet gambling remains prohibited than if it is well regulated with operators who are required to put in place the safety measures described

Possible to use technology to “tame” technology.

The NRGP believes it imperative that the legislation has or does the following: •requirement that would-be suppliers demonstrate that they have effective player-ID procedures, especially for ensuring that children cannot gamble •requires operators to conform to a code of practice (SARGF will draw up)•specifies that links to web-based information about the dangers of gambling be prominently advertised and easily accessible from gambling websites•requires sites to provide easy access to a self-test for problem gambling•requires operators to publish easy access to the NRGP’s free, confidential and expert counselling for problem gambling, giving the toll free line•makes specific mention of the illegal gambling which currently occurs via cell phones or those available on interactive TV•requires operators to keep records of customer transactions for a period sufficient to enable identification of patterns of excessive play•requires operators to demonstrate social responsibility and to conform to a code of practice to be drawn up under the auspices of the SARGF

RecommendationsRecommendations

• The NRGP, favours the legalisation and regulation of remote gambling because it will make possible the imposition and enforcement of these provisions for the avoidance of problem gambling.

• Current research on internet gambling is not conclusive. The NRGP proposes to further research the prevalence and/or impact of internet gambling.

RecommendationsRecommendations

Other considerationsOther considerations

• To achieve compliance with the law, incentives may be called for.

• Strongest incentive will be the right to advertise which will be restricted to companies which are headquartered in SA for regulatory and tax purposes

• They could also be required to have a “.za” suffix to their web address.

• Being regulated by the SA Government would entitle them to advertise this fact on their sites – would increase consumer confidence

 • Equipment should conform to specifications set by the SA regulatory

authorities and be inspectable. Does not necessarily mean it has to be located in SA. In place to prevent criminal activity, including defrauding customers, and ensuring adequate consumer protection.

 • Not possible to protect land-based operations from cheaper competition from

the internet. But this competition is likely to be more damaging if it comes from unregulated sites abroad than from well-regulated South African sites which many existing SA gambling companies may be expected to operate successfully themselves

Thank you!Thank you!