Who is at risk? While it is acknowledged further research still needs to be undertaken to determine which individuals are most at risk for problem online wagering behaviours, and what behavioural indicators of responsible gambling for online wagering are, the most recent evidence suggests the demographic factors for those most at risk are: male gender younger age never married having an undergraduate qualification being employed fulltime or a fulltime student. Young adult males are said to be increasingly the target of gambling promotion and there is a growing normalisation of behaviour that watching sports means also gambling on sports. Research has shown men aged between 25 and 34 were the most likely to have placed a sports bet in any given three months and were most likely to have placed this bet on sport over the internet. It is suggested this is in respect to younger generations being more techsavvy and are frequent users of smartphones. Another study has looked at the role of peer influences for young male peer groups on the normalisation of sports wagering and found that: sports betting is commonly perceived as normal, with some participants estimating up to 90 per cent of people gamble on the Australian Football League and the National Rugby League sports betting has a positive image not associated with guilt, in contrast to betting on the pokies, which is normally stigmatised and morally judged sports betting is normalised by promotions and sponsorship, and through peer discussions sports wagering is embedded in existing sports rituals, such as drinking alcohol and watching sport at the pub. In May 2015, it was reported that some teenagers have accumulated debts of up to $30,000 through online sports betting and that the number of young people asking for help in relation to online betting has doubled in three years, according to the University of Sydney’s Gambling Treatment Clinic. The University of Sydney’s Gambling Treatment Clinic warned that community attitudes towards gambling must change, particularly for young people, as the individuals who attend the clinic are in their 40s and 50s, started getting into gambling problems while in their early 20s. The reported consequences of problem gambling for individuals included loss of housing and employment, marriage breakdown and lost custody of children. The O’Farrell Review reported that problem gambling had a significant impact on the family and friends of the individual experiencing problems. Further, the Problem Gambling Treatment and Research Centre (the Centre) found that the cycle of gambling was likely to continue through generations. A Report commissioned by the Centre, found that children with parents who are problem gamblers are up to
Current practice in Australia Although under the current arrangements, all states and territories have mandated for the availability of self-exclusion for online wagering, requirements for offering other features related to self-exclusion vary by jurisdiction. It is important to note these mandated self-exclusion rules do not apply to the other self-exclusion type products that online wagering providers offer such as ‘take a break’, a tool offered by Sportsbet. These tools offered by providers are in addition to self-exclusion and often allow for very short-term exclusion from wagering activity. Table 2: Current features in Australian jurisdictions State/ territory system includes online operators Availability of is mandated through legislation or other regulation application for Provisions for thirdparty nomination (not thirdparty approaches) Flexibility for setting periods of Maximum periods Minimum periods periods Capacity for customer to revoke Provision of referral to counselling and support services Cessation of advertising materials upon commencement Outstanding funds paid to customers upon ACT* NSW** n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a NT± (only after set time period) QLD±± SA±±± n/a TAS¥ VIC¥¥ n/a WA¥¥¥ n/a (optional) exclusion exclusion exclusion exclusion exclusion
NSW (but bookmaker authority conditional on adhering to a code of practice that is approved by a racing controlling body) Opt-in Unknown (operator dependent) seven days (operator dependent) NT Outlined in the NT Code of Practice for Responsible Online Gambling 2016 Opt-in Unknown (operator dependent) 24 hours Maximum gambling spend, winnings, losses, deposits and duration of play QLD Outlined in the Wagering Regulation 1999 Optin Written notice seven days Maximum spend SA* Outlined in Gambling Codes of Practice Notice 2013 (mandatory to offer) Opt-out (no less than two year intervals) Unknown (operator dependent) seven days (no less than two years) Net betting losses and/or deposits made (though operators may offer more options) Weekly TAS Outlined in Gaming Control Act 1993 Opt-in Written notice seven days Net loss limits (though operators may offer more limit options) Calendar month VIC (only in relation to EGMs) WA** Outlined in Rules of Wagering 2005 Opt-in Unknown (operator dependent) seven days Limits on amount wagered and deposited One month *Under the Part 4, Division 2 of the Gambling Codes of Practice Notice 2013, gambling providers which includes interstate betting operators, must provide a precommitment scheme in respect of account based gambling. A gambling provider must ensure that each account holder has no more than one gambling account except where the gambling provider offers only net betting losses as a precommitment limit.
information time spent gambling online (excluding sport bookmakers). QLD Nil for online wagering Some wagering providers may voluntarily provide activity statements through customers’ online accounts. SA Provided for in the SA Gambling Code of Practice Notice 2013, whereby operators must send an account holder a routine activity statement: every month where there are 50 or more transactions for a gambling account for up to three consecutive calendar months where more than 40 transactions are conducted on an account once in 12 months following the provision of an activity statement. In addition to any routine activity statements, an operator must also send special activity statements to an account holder upon request, for the period nominated by the account holder. From 1 July 2016, activity statements were required to include details on spotter’s fees. TAS Provided in the Responsible Gambling Mandatory Code of Practice for Tasmania, where player loyalty programs are in place, activity statements must be provided at least once a year and must show point’s accrual separately for gambling and non-gambling activity. For any gambling activities, the statement must show the amount in dollars, of any expenditure during the period. This should be accessible in real time. VIC Nil for online wagering Under the Responsible Gambling Code of Practice of Victoria’s wagering and betting licensee (Tabcorp Wagering Victoria), Tabcorp provides customers (including online customers) with access to betting statements that record: all bets all winning dividends
3: Until the proposed national framework is established and operating, consideration of additional in-play betting products should be deferred and legislative steps taken to respect the original intent of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. Noted The Government does not intend to further expand the Australian gambling market through enabling the offering of online in-play betting. The Government is of the view that the Australian online wagering agencies offering ‘click-to-call’ type in-play betting services are breaching the provisions and intent of the IGA. The Government will introduce legislation as soon as possible to give effect to the intent of the IGA. 4: A national self-exclusion register that applies across all online operators should be developed, either by an expansion of the Northern Territory register or through a new national system. The costs associated with such a register should be borne by online operators. Agree A nationwide, selfexclusion capability to be offered by all providers to all consumers will be developed as part of the national framework in consultation with the states and territories, and other stakeholders (as per recommendation 2). A number of states and territories and wagering providers already have voluntary selfexclusion and precommitment systems available, and a national register should ideally leverage existing architecture. 5: Operators should be required to offer customers an opportunity to set voluntary limits on their wagering activities. Consumers should be prompted about setting or reviewing limits on a regular basis. Agree The national framework will incorporate standards for making voluntary precommitment limits available to all consumers. These will be developed in consultation with the states and territories, and other stakeholders (as per recommendation 2). The standards will consider elements such as visibility, transparency and periodic prompting empowering consumers to reconsider their betting limits.
Recommendation Position Comments 17: The Act should be amended to: improve and simplify the definition of prohibited activities extend the ambit of enforcement to affiliates, agents and the like include the use of name and shame lists published online to detail illegal sites and their directors and principals and to include the use of other Commonwealth instruments to disrupt travel to Australia by those named allow ACMA, where appropriate, to notify in writing any relevant international regulator in the jurisdiction where the site is licensed allow ACMA to implement new (civil) penalties as proposed by the 2012 review include a provision that restricts an operator providing illegal services to Australian consumers from obtaining a licence in any Australian jurisdiction for a specified future time period Agree The Government will introduce legislative amendments to provide greater clarity around the legality of services, strengthen the enforcement of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, and deliver improved enforcement outcomes. It will also introduce the other mechanisms as outlined in the recommendation. The implementation of the national framework and other legislative and disruption measures may also be flow on benefits in the critical areas of sport and racing integrity. 18: Treasury, and other relevant agencies should work with banks and credit card providers to identify potential payment blocking strategies to disrupt illegal offshore wagering. Additionally, the recommendation from the 2012 Review of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 relating to ‘safe harbour’ provisions be adopted to support these efforts. Agree While disruption strategies cannot provide a complete solution, payment blocking and restrictions have been used in other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, France and the United States as part of a multifaceted strategy designed to reduce the adverse outcomes of illegal online wagering. The Government will consult with the banks and credit card providers to assess the potential options and practicality of payment blocking strategies to address illegal offshore wagering and gaming. The adoption of Recommendation 8 from the 2012 Review of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 will be considered after the potential options have been explored.