Formal Opposition to
Online Casino Gambling Bill
(Government Bill 178–1, Brooke van Velden)
From: Ukes Baha | 14 August 2025
Submitted in response to the call for public submissions on the Online Casino Gambling Bill
Summary of Position
I oppose the Online Casino Gambling Bill in its current form.
While framed as a safety and regulation measure, the bill effectively legitimises and expands access to one of the most harmful forms of gambling — high-speed, high-loss online casinos. It opens New Zealand’s market to offshore operators, normalises gambling through sanctioned advertising, and risks creating long-term government dependence on gambling revenue.
Rather than protecting communities, the bill embeds online casino gambling into multiple Acts and regulatory frameworks in a way that will entrench its presence and make future harm-reduction measures harder to implement.
1. Normalisation and Promotion of Online Gambling
Reference: Amendments to the Gambling Act 2003, ss.9, 15, 16.
Problem:
- Allows licensed online casino advertising, increasing exposure to addictive gambling products, including among young people.
- Creates a state-backed framework that frames online casino gambling as safe and legitimate, despite known links to addiction, family harm, debt, and suicide risk.
- Undermines the intent of the Gambling Act 2003, which sought to limit gambling growth and associated harm.
2. Opening the Market to Offshore Operators
Reference: Provisions enabling licensing of operators “whether in or outside New Zealand” (e.g., s.319(3A) levy application).
Problem:
- Offshore operators are harder to regulate and monitor for harm-minimisation and anti-money laundering compliance.
- Profits can be transferred offshore while the social and economic harms remain in New Zealand.
- Enforcement against non-compliant operators in foreign jurisdictions will be costly and often ineffective.
3. Inadequate Harm Minimisation and Consumer Protections
Reference: Gambling (Problem Gambling Levy) Regulations 2025 — levy set at 1.24% of turnover less prizes.
Problem:
- The levy rate is small compared to the measurable social costs of problem gambling.
- No statutory requirement that levy funds be ring-fenced for prevention, treatment, or public education.
- Lacks strong, mandatory player protections such as universal loss limits, independent self-exclusion registers, or enforced cooling-off periods.
- Harm reduction is left largely to the discretion of operators and the Department of Internal Affairs.
4. Increased Risk of Money Laundering and Financial Crime
Reference: Amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009.
Problem:
- Online casinos are globally recognised as high-risk money-laundering channels.
- While AML requirements are extended to online casino operators, cross-border transactions and foreign ownership make monitoring and enforcement complex.
- The wording that an operator “may give rise to a risk” is vague and allows for inconsistent application of AML obligations.
5. Prioritising Revenue Over Public Health
Reference: Integration into the Gaming Duties Act 1971 and the Tax Administration Act 1994.
Problem:
- The bill positions online casino gambling as a significant tax revenue source, risking government reliance on gambling profits.
- This creates a structural conflict of interest — discouraging strong future regulation that could reduce revenue but protect public health.
6. Risk of Regulatory Scope Creep
Problem:
- Broad definitions of “online casino gambling” and “operator” enable future expansion of gambling forms under the same framework.
- Levy provisions applying to operators “whether in or outside New Zealand” may set a precedent for extending state-regulated gambling into other high-risk products.
7. Unreasonably Short Submission Period
Reference: Public call for submissions 12–17 August 2025.
Problem:
- Only five days for public and expert review of a complex, socially impactful bill severely limits democratic participation.
- Such a short consultation period is inconsistent with good law-making practice, particularly for legislation with major public health implications.
Conclusion and Recommendations
This bill reframes online casino gambling as a safe, regulated, and legitimate industry when the evidence shows it is one of the most harmful forms of gambling. By enabling advertising, licensing offshore operators, and integrating gambling into revenue streams, it shifts the role of government from protector to promoter.
I recommend the Committee:
- Retain the prohibition on online casino gambling rather than creating a licensing regime.
- If regulation is pursued, limit licences to NZ-based operators subject to full domestic oversight.
- Prohibit advertising of all online casino gambling products.
- Require mandatory, enforceable harm-minimisation measures — including universal loss limits, independent self-exclusion, and real-time affordability checks.
- Increase the Problem Gambling Levy to reflect the true social cost of harm, and ring-fence all proceeds for prevention and treatment.
- Require independent annual audits of operator compliance and government use of levy funds.
- Extend the public submission period to allow meaningful community consultation.
Access to health and wellbeing is not served by legitimising harmful gambling products.
Public policy must remain transparent, accountable, and focused on preventing harm — not fostering dependence on gambling revenue.
Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com