An account-based system could be the best option to curb gambling harm in Australia, however any such framework put in place would have to be mandatory, according to Professor Sally Gainsbury, the Director of the Gambling Treatment & Research Clinic at the University of Sydney.

Speaking to AGB, Professor Gainsbury highlighted that the advantages of account-based gambling work both for the consumer – in protecting themselves from gambling harm, and for operators – in identifying who is experiencing gambling harm and providing different types of interventions.

The professor was one of the academic members of the Executive Committee Members on the Independent Panel for Gaming Reform, which was established by the New South Wales government in July of 2023 and published its findings in the Roadmap for Gaming Report last December.

One recommendation of the panel was the establishment of a mandatory statewide account-based gaming system, with a phased approach, ‘allowing for voluntary adoption until a centralized system is fully operational, estimated to be by 2028’.

This account-based gaming term replaces the more popularized ‘cashless gaming’ concept which has been widely discussed across various Australian states, with varying degrees of implementation.

Why is this necessary?

“One of the more harmful forms of gambling in Australia are the electronic gaming machines, or pokies, and the idea of these being cash-based and anonymous contributes to that harm, both in terms of the money laundering, but also in terms of the difficulty in identifying who is actually experiencing harm and having any interventions,” notes the professor.

A primary benefit to the consumer would be in keeping track of their gambling amounts and habits and setting up personalized limits. The idea is that all players would need to be identified and linked to a player account. Players would still be allowed to play with cash, “but there should be a requirement to set a limit on how much they want to spend, and that there are easy-to-view transaction statements”.

Professor Gainsbury says her recommendations are essentially “to use the system to put the consumer, the player, back in control, so they can see all of their own data and to enable them to make more informed decisions about how much they want to gamble”.

“With the technology that’s currently available, there’s no reason that individuals and consumers shouldn’t have more opportunity to put their own safeguards in place,” she highlights.

Adoption

But the adoption of an account-based system is difficult, not only from the lackluster results seen in the cashless gaming trials done so far, but also due to the ease of maintaining the status quo.

Once this can be overcome, “there would be limited issues going forward”.

The independent panel recommended that a centralized database of accounts (possibly requiring ID), could be further linked to other systems such as the statewide exclusion register and facial recognition technology.

This would require a certain finesse in regards to privacy concerns. The government would need to accurately address “who has access to the information in there (the account system), your gambling transactions and your personal identity information […] ensuring that system is designed such that that information is private and not shared with any parties that shouldn’t have access to it”.

This includes how much operators of venues would have access to the information, particularly given the large amounts of data that they already collect on their consumers and how they can use this information to target their promotional campaigns to attract punters.

Format

When it comes to the format, the academic notes that “whether it’s a physical card or an app doesn’t really make a difference. It’s about having an account where your identity is verified and your information is contained in that account. That’s electronic by the nature of it.” This could even allow a multi-format approach for those less tech-savvy.

Plus, accounts could be differentiated based upon the player demographic, their propensity to gamble and their history of gambling, allowing “personalized and targeted interventions”.

This could even get to the point “where an individual has a triggered message that’s very specific for them, that’s delivered just in time”.

While this would be for more extreme cases aimed at preventing gambling harm, for less frequent gamblers this type of engagement wouldn’t be as necessary.

“It’s about looking at where people are in that kind of risk zone”.

Having this differentiated approach means that authorities could “identify what are the barriers that need to be overcome to maximize uptake amongst different cohorts, rather than expect there to be one strategy that will work for everybody”.

This highly contrasts the “broad sweep approaches” that have been implemented so far in prevention and responsible gambling campaigns.

While multiple avenues have been identified and proposed, the academic laments that “the rates of problematic gambling have remained very steady”.

And even as there has been an increased “emphasis on consumer protection […] products are becoming more sophisticated,” notes Professor Gainsbury.

As Director of the Gambling Treatment & Research Clinic at the University of Sydney, the professor notes that the majority of the 1,000 or so clients they see every year have problems “related to gaming machines […] that’s certainly the most problematic form of gambling we see as treatment providers”.

But sports and race wagering patients at the clinic have “been increasing as a trend over the years”. And operators are constantly working to differentiate their product, providing different options and avenues to engage more punters, or keep the experience exciting for current ones.

While suggestions for how to tackle problem gambling have been put forth by many, including Professor Gainsbury, it remains to be seen exactly how the New South Wales government will try and tackle the issue, if it can do so in a timely manner, and if politics will play a hand.