1 / 16

Presentation to Portfolio Committee

Presentation to Portfolio Committee. Peter Collins National Responsible Gambling Programme. Process. Why the hurry? Between Draft 10 and 11, some very substantial new proposals have been made which: Involve complex issues Have never been previously discussed

walter
Download Presentation

Presentation to Portfolio Committee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presentation to Portfolio Committee Peter Collins National Responsible Gambling Programme

  2. Process Why the hurry? Between Draft 10 and 11, some very substantial new proposals have been made which: • Involve complex issues • Have never been previously discussed • Are not informed by knowledge of what is happening in SA • Or internationally • Cannot be adequately explored in the time available to this committee

  3. Problem Gambling • Addicted Gamblers: Self-destructive; Compulsive;Obsessive; Escapist; Delusional • Problem Gamblers: Self-damage; Poor self-control in relation to gambling NB PGs may be in early stages of addictive illness but may also simply be ignorant of how gambling works, prey to superstition, lacking in money management skills

  4. Measuring PG • GA 20 Questions about remorse; chasing losses; chasing winnings; spending more time or money than intended; inappropriate financing of gambling etc • Vulnerable to dishonesty • Cut-off points are arbitrary • But 0, 7 and 14 are reasonable indicators of no problem, significant problem and very serious (addiction-like) problem

  5. SA Numbers 2003 GA questions affirmatively: • 80% answer 0 • 4.6% answer 7 or more • 0.7% answer 14 or more

  6. SA Numbers Growth • 2003 Sample of 5816; Prob Gams = 270 in total (4.6% of sample) 183 regular apart from lottery (of which 117 play slots); 100 lottery and scratch only; 87 lottery only.   • 2001 Sample of 5800; Prob Gams = 22 in total; 186 regular apart from lottery; 35 lottery only. Growth in PG is small and attributable to growth in lottery.

  7. Problem Gamblers by Income • Of PGs 16% of lottery/scratch only have less than R1400 disposable; 32% have between R1400 and R4000, 45% have more than R4000 (R = Didn’t answer) • Of regular apart from lottery 16% have less than R1400 disposable; 31% have between R1400 and R4000; 40% have more than R4000; (R = Didn’t answer)

  8. Conclusions about PG in SA • Problem Gambling (Gambling addiction and Gambling abuse) is a moderate problem in SA comparable to alcohol addiction and abuse but with fewer catastrophic consequences • It is broadly in line with international levels and has not grown alarmingly • Most people including most poor people gamble responsibly i.e. don’t spend more than they can afford on the pleasure they fet from gambling

  9. What should NOT be done Write into LAW as opposed to REGULATION scattershot measures which merely impose inconveniences such as: • Prescribing closing times • Making cashless gambling difficult • Forbidding suppliers to lower prices through discounts

  10. Why not scattershot measures They are: • Probably ineffectual: international research + common sense • Undermine economic benefits like employment rather than supplier profits • Have negative unintended consequences like increasing crime • Are unfair to non-problem gamblers • Require the flexibility denied by being enshrined in legislation rather than left to regulation

  11. Instead Have targetted measures like: • A gambler’s driver’s licence as pioneered by Prof Eadington which will address problems of self-exclusion and underage gamblers as well as promoting good education • Easy access to counselling (esp in casinos) • Better compliance

  12. And above all, EDUCATION • Addresses the root cause of excessive gambling other than addictive gambling especially amongst the poor • Does not involve treating the poor patronisingly or paternalistically • Does not curtail legitimate freedom of choice but ensures informed choice

  13. Education of Whom? Separate programmes for • Current gamblers • Potential gamblers • The young • The retired • The poor • Community leaders, social workers, ministers of religion

  14. In what? • How gambling works: odds • How to gamble responsibly: setting limits • The signs of trouble • How to get help

  15. Conclusions about the Bill irt Problem Gambling If enacted in its present form the bill would • lack the democratic legitimacy conferred by proper consultation • not meet international standards for good regulation • almost certainly require work to start immediately on the first of eleven drafts for SA’s next gambling act • do very little to help problem gamblers

  16. Instead • Either refer back for more extensive consultation • Revert to making problem gambling the responsibility of the Minister, the Council of Ministers and the Regulators with powers to consider and impose all the measures proposed here in regulations including closing times, credit, discounting

More Related