Credit off the table for online bookmaker clients
ARE you a punter or trader who uses credit to facilitate your professional career?
If so, it’s time you came up with a plan B.
Changes made to the Interactive Gaming Amendment (IGA) bill last night included a ban on all forms of credit betting from online agencies.
The ban, which would preclude online bookmakers from offering any type of credit to clients, was added to the IGA overnight in an effort to stop a purported “predatory practice”.
#Senate will debate the Interactive Gambling Amendment bill 2016 today as a ban on gambling ads & credit betting was added yesterday #auspol
— Casino Sites (@CasinoSitesAu) March 21, 2017
The simplified portion of the amendment reads as follows:
This part bans a restricted wagering service from providing or offering credit. The ban aims to ensure that restricted wagering services do not engage in a predatory practice, particularly in relation to problem gamblers, and that sports betting services are provided in a responsible manner.
Restricted wagering services that contravene the restriction may commit an offence or contravene a civil penalty provision.
Bookmakers do not offer lines of credit to all customers, and any client that is looking to secure credit has to submit to a similar process to a credit card application where ability to pay the money back, risk mitigation as well as potential to become a problem gambler are all assessed.
Credit restriction – how will it impact you?
It’s often said contemporary people should be in charge of decision-making when it directly impacts them. This should have been the case in regards to the IGA reform, which has shown exactly what can happen when out of touch politicians think they are acting on behalf of the people.
The bet on online agencies offering a line of credit may seem like a solution on the surface, but in reality it is incredibly short-sighted and not even a true solution to the problem.
What the act described as “deferred payment betting” is effectively restricting customers from betting unless funds have for all intents and purposes changed hands from the client to the company.
Whichever way you look at it, it seems like a watershed moment and potentially one of the most mis-managed amendments since online gambling hit the mainstream this decade.
@sportstradingau Xenophon is an absolute disgrace who really is narrrow minded when it comes to gambling/trading.
— AS Trading (@flyingspuracing) March 21, 2017
If an online bookmaker wants to offer you a line of credit, what is the difference between that and obtaining a loan from a bank?
Furthermore, nothing is precluding a customer from obtaining a loan from another source and using it to gamble. The only difference is, that method has the potential to be far more dangerous.
Wagering companies are not in the business of offering free money to those to lure them in like a drug dealer on the street. Risk mitigation, the ability to pay a line of credit back and the potential for problem gambling.
Much like a bank loan, there is a period of time allotted for the company to investigate, discuss and approve a line of credit. Sounds exactly like the process you went through to get your car or house loan right?
Credit betting was never intended to lure people in and create an interest rate profit for the companies. In fact, credit betting for most agencies did not even take any additional amount from clients other than the amount originally lent.
The decision to ban it completely smacks of incompetence from a government which does not understand an ever-changing industry. The Australian government would rather cut the nose of the industry to spite its face, rather than do the requisite research required to properly implement problem-gambling strategy.
A ban on credit is again a diversion from the true problem gambling monster in this country, which is poker machines.
The sooner the government bites the bullet and hits the gaming industry hard and stops trying to find a scapegoat, the better off the entire gambling landscape will be.