Online Casino Gambling Bill Third Reading Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:09): I move, That the Online Casino Gambling Bill be now read a third time. Today marks an important milestone in strengthening New Zealand’s approach to gambling harm and consumer protection. The Online Casino Gambling Bill represents a significant and long-overdue step forward. The bill also supports this Government’s coalition agreement. Before the House reaches its final decision on the Online Casino Gambling Bill, I want to acknowledge the many people who have contributed to its development. I thank the Governance and Administration Committee members for their consideration of this bill, and I thank all those who took the time to make submissions on online casino gambling. I also acknowledge colleagues across the House for their engagement throughout the bill’s passage, and I thank my officials for their work on this bill. As members of this House will be aware, online casino gambling is already widespread, easily accessible, and currently unregulated. There is no recourse when things go wrong. That is the gap that this bill seeks to close. This bill establishes a licensing syst…
Read full Hansard debate
Online Casino Gambling Bill
Third Reading
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:09): I move, That the Online Casino Gambling Bill be now read a third time.
Today marks an important milestone in strengthening New Zealand’s approach to gambling harm and consumer protection. The Online Casino Gambling Bill represents a significant and long-overdue step forward. The bill also supports this Government’s coalition agreement.
Before the House reaches its final decision on the Online Casino Gambling Bill, I want to acknowledge the many people who have contributed to its development. I thank the Governance and Administration Committee members for their consideration of this bill, and I thank all those who took the time to make submissions on online casino gambling.
I also acknowledge colleagues across the House for their engagement throughout the bill’s passage, and I thank my officials for their work on this bill. As members of this House will be aware, online casino gambling is already widespread, easily accessible, and currently unregulated. There is no recourse when things go wrong. That is the gap that this bill seeks to close.
This bill establishes a licensing system for online casino operators. It sets out clear requirements for harm minimisation, creates a strong enforcement regime, and ensures that a share of revenue returns to New Zealand communities. This bill allows for a competitive market while also providing Kiwis who wish to gamble with safer, regulated options to do so. Licensed operators will have to meet consumer protection obligations, including minimising the risk of harm from online casino gambling. They must identify and assist those experiencing harm, exclude problem gamblers, and must not offer credit for gambling.
This bill allows up to 15 licences to be issued for online casino gambling. Operators from overseas and in New Zealand can apply if they are suitable. They must meet strict criteria, including having a harm prevention strategy and providing information on their business compliance history. Once licensed, they will be able to advertise with restrictions and be required to pay tax and contribute towards the problem gambling levy. Operators will clearly need to show that their gambling platforms are licensed so the public can easily see which services are legitimate and regulated in New Zealand. This will require a registration icon or audio mark to be displayed on any advertising and gambling platforms.
The Department of Internal Affairs will regulate the sector, with costs recovered from licensed operators. To ensure the regime is effective, the bill makes clear that operators cannot avoid New Zealand law by being located offshore. The bill gives the regulator strong enforcement tools, including take-down notices, warnings, enforceable undertakings, and penalties of up to $5 million for serious or persistent breaches.
This bill also ensures that New Zealand communities benefit through changes to the online gambling duty. Funding will be returned to communities through the Lottery Grants Board. This reflects the clear message from submissions on the bill. If we are regulating online gambling, benefits should flow back to local sports clubs, community groups, and grassroots organisations. I listened and we are delivering on what matters most to communities across this country. Importantly, this funding will come from an activity that is already occurring rather than from increasing gambling participation. It is not the Government’s intention with this bill to increase gambling but to make sure it is safer for those who choose to gamble.
The Government will review the regime once it’s been in place. This will consider how well harm minimisation, consumer protection, and community funding objectives are being met. A separate two-year review will look at impacts on other forms of gambling, community markers, and community returns. This review allows the adjustment of any settings that are not working for operators and consumers and allows this licensing regime to respond and adapt to emerging international trends. A separate two-year review will look at impacts on other forms of gambling and community returns.
The bill enables the Government to set detailed regulatory requirements for how licensed operators may operate here in New Zealand, including harm prevention and minimisation, advertising and marketing restrictions, consumer protections, record keeping, and cost recovery fees. This approach is consistent with the Gambling Act 2003 and ensures that the regulatory framework can remain responsive to market and technology while giving operators clear and enforceable requirements to plan and operate in the New Zealand market.
In relation to advertising, the intent is to support a safe and well-regulated market, not to encourage increase gambling participation. Carefully controlled advertising allows consumers to identify licensed operators and make informed choices while helping to channel demand away from unlicensed operators. The regulations I’ve proposed will mean operators must not target advertisements at those under the age of 25 unless the operator can demonstrate that the advertisement can be precisely targeted at consumers over the age of 18, and the content of advertisements and promotions must not reasonably appeal to those under the age of 18.
Setting these requirements, including fees, through regulations rather than here in the primary legislation provides flexibility to adjust settings as the market develops and as better information on market size and regulatory costs become available. This approach supports proportional cost-reflective fees over time and gives operators greater certainty by clearly stating compliance requirements and updating them as the market evolves.
This bill is a balanced and practical piece of legislation that will support the Government’s coalition agreement. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (11:16): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a contribution. Before I do that, in case I do not get any chance today, I do want to just honour our Anzac men and women and specifically veterans as we remember them this weekend.
As spokesperson for Labour, I tell members that we continue to oppose the Online Casino Gambling Bill. Yes, while we agree with the regulation in the bill in terms of regulating, we would state that the bill does not go far enough. We’ve heard the statement from the Minister, and I do want to acknowledge the 4,837 individuals and groups who submitted—of that number, 3,966 in the first, initial draft of the bill. There was no community return for our communities who may be involved in online casino gambling.
The reason why, on this side of the House, the Labour team stresses the up to 15 new licences that this bill will allow to be brought into New Zealand is because there is limited information and regulations that do not go far enough in terms of harm minimisation tools and consumer protections.
I also want to acknowledge the officials who worked with the select committee, and I want to acknowledge the select committee members. We collaborated, we discussed the pros and cons, but we also had the opportunity to hear from submitters across Aotearoa, in terms of harm minimisation and what is being brought into New Zealand. In our view, the licences are far too many for New Zealanders to practically understand the controls that, we say, do not go far enough. There was a lot of evidence put forward by submitters, which gave us select committee members the opportunity to consider why this legislation requires very proactive controls.
It is important that New Zealanders understand things like gambling addiction. The difference between online casino gambling and land-based casinos is that land-based casinos, those specific businesses, understand the operations that open and close to people. With online casino gambling, those licences offshore will be able to do their business 24/7. The issue with that is that vulnerable communities across Aotearoa, at a time when affordability and the cost of living are really hitting vulnerable New Zealanders, some of those choices will not be able to be made attentively by vulnerable New Zealanders who have an addiction to online gambling.
In our view, specifically what the statistics tell us is that things like controls on advertising need to go further in term of this amendment bill. We are pleased that the Government U-turned in October 2025; that the Cabinet made a ruling, or a provision, that there would be a community return—return back to the communities across Aotearoa. If you look at the evidence, the Minister stated in some of her explanations, that New Zealanders have to be very careful because addiction is high when it comes to gambling. Online gambling will propose 24/7 access, and the trouble with that activity is that it will be able to be accessed on any device. There are limited controls, and in our view, for Labour, we want to see those strengthened.
We heard from submitters, such as the Problem Gambling Foundation, that there needed to be very clear words in the amendment bill that will help them help New Zealanders who are very vulnerable to this type of activity. The oral submissions that were made by groups, iwi Māori, Pasifika, ethnic, and Chinese raised that, with some of the individuals who will be utilising this online casino gambling to do their activity, the problem is it is such a hidden activity. It might not be popular in terms of some parts of our community, but it is important to raise the health issues and the mental ability of some of the consumers who will be using some of those sites.
We are also concerned about the lack of protections that have been provided under this legislation. Labour continues to believe that, for some of the proceeds that will come from these companies, there has to be a mechanism. When the Gambling Act was set up in 2003, there was the authorisation that some gambling could occur, which was mainly written for land-based gambling operations. The online casino gambling legislation, we would argue, still doesn’t provide the assurance that Kiwis will be protected by this bill.
The offshore gambling duty that is proposed in this bill rests at between 12 percent to 16 percent—the gross gambling revenue—and in our submission it proposes the 4 percent. We would argue that it needs to be raised either to 8 percent or over, because that will ring-fence the proceeds for our communities to be returned to the community, which sits between a $10 million to $20 million figure. Labour continues to argue that the controls that are proposed in this bill continue not to go far enough, and we would like to see those strengthened in any future iterations.
One of the things, when we went through committee stage, was to ask the Minister to consider tools such as the self-exclusion register. When you look at the bill and the provisions, what happens is that there’s a number of different dates. Once the bill goes through Royal assent, it will be introduced in terms of what that proposes, and then there are other tools that strengthen the bill, but the dates of the proposal, of the commencement date, is a much later date. The self-exclusion register was one of the tools that we wanted, on this side of the House, to be input from the start of the actual legislation, because there are consumers, or there are New Zealanders, who, once the doors are open, in terms of those licences, who will come into New Zealand, do their advertising—actually some of them are already in New Zealand. We have social media influencers, which the Department of Internal Affairs has been dealing with. They’re also doing non-authorised activity.
We do, again, acknowledge that community return. We heard from communities, groups, and individuals up and down Aotearoa. The fact that they require those community returns—because a lot of them are doing class 4 activity through Lotto and through their organisations. I know we’ve heard from the Minister that the reliance on that revenue is something she would like to see deterred, however, there is no system to replace the community returns to our community.
The last point I wanted to raise in my time left was the distribution system. We heard from a number of submitters, and we support that the community grant system—the current system—will go through the lottery grants system, which is a central system with a number of controls, and also delays. Labour supports that a local system would be helpful. We heard from the submission of Mr Martin Snedden, in terms of the thoughts that he put forward in his submission, and we would strongly support that. So, just as I end off, Labour continues to oppose this amendment bill.
MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (11:26): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to oppose this bill. The Green Party do support good and sensible regulation that is focused on harm reduction and risk minimisation. However, this bill is not that. One of the purposes of this bill is to prevent and minimise harm from online casino gambling; however, it just doesn’t do that. What it does do is gather revenue. This bill is a money-grab that will create misery. Once again, it’s just another example of this Government, which values profits over people, and to ensure they make as much money as they can, this Government will auction off their licences to overseas entities that, like this Government, do not care who or what it hurts.
We know from the feedback from other agencies on this regime that there was some serious concerns about the harm that would be caused by this bill. The Ministry of Health stated: “However, it seems from the paper that very little mention of harm prevention or minimisation is proposed for the bill beyond the purpose, with almost all the detail delegated to regulations. While we understand the benefit of regulations in a fast-evolving environment, we think that some more parameters around harm prevention and minimisations need to be in the bill to anchor to the purpose.”
Te Whatu Ora said: “We welcome the intention to regulate online gambling but are concerned that the proposed regulations will increase gambling and lead to an increase in gambling harm. First, we’re concerned that the Cabinet paper does not reflect the potential for harm that online gambling presents. The regulatory impact statement (RIS) provides evidence and discussion on this, but it is not well-reflected in the paper. We encourage you to make the potential for harm more visible so that legislative proposals can be considered in this context. Specifically, we note that online gambling is particularly harmful as it’s continuous, easily accessible, and easy to hide.”
The RIS notes that the number of presentations to gambling harm services with offshore online gambling listed as a main mode of harm has increased by 71 percent since 2019—a 1,500 percent rise in the number of adults gambling with offshore providers between 2010 and 2020, and growing from around 7,000 adults to 105,000 adults. It is known that online gambling poses higher risks of addiction by being available 24/7. It allows gamblers to hide their gambling by moving it on to their personal device and into their homes. It can lack effective safeguards around age verification of gamblers. And we know, if you look at the e-scooters, they’re also meant to be over 18. The amount of younger people under 18 that are actually riding those scooters, and that’s because the operator is not there and present when they’re being ridden.
This poses problems of regulations due to the online and remote nature of the gambling environment. Problem gambling among those who gamble on the internet is ten times higher than that of the general population. It was extremely clear that this bill would increase harm amongst people—amongst vulnerable people—but it got pushed through without actually fixing that big issue.
From the notes from the regulatory impact statement on the costs: gambling harm treatment providers may experience an increase in direct costs due to increased resourcing requirements. This is showing that there will be increased harm. We assume that these costs will be offset by the collection of the problem gambling levy by licensed operators. You cannot offset harm by a levy. The wider public will experience some indirect costs, namely the cost of gambling harm, which we assume will be partially offset by the problem gambling levy. Once again, you cannot offset the social harm, the costs, the impacts on whānau, financial standing, wellbeing, and mental health, through a levy on offshore operators.
Through the process in the Governance and Administration Committee—which I wasn’t in on; I joined a little bit later—there were, obviously, 4,837 groups and individuals who submitted. Out of that, 3,966 raised issues on the community returns. On the back of that, the gambling duty was increased from 12 to 16 percent, with 25 percent of that revenue ring-fenced for community. I think we all have to accept that is a double-edged sword, because there are so many great, not-for-profit community groups that do rely on the proceeds of gambling services to survive. However, we must accept that the money coming to them is coming at a cost to the wellbeing of our community who are the ones that are suffering from gambling harm.
During the committee of the whole House, the Minister introduced an amendment that would effectively remove the ring-fencing of the 25 percent. She did say that there were reasons to do that to make it a more simple process. She said that the amount returned to the community can, therefore, be increased through amendment by Cabinet rather than amended in legislation. I think what she forgot to mention at that time was it could also be decreased. My colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan did ask: is the funding gambling duty still ring-fenced for the purpose of allocation and distribution for community purposes? Would the removal of the 25 percent mean that the new amount would be less or significantly less than 25 percent?
Naturally, the Minister avoided answering that question properly. She did thank him and said the funding collected from the duty for the purpose of community returns will be transferred through the Budget process and Cabinet will decide the amount. Therefore, it does not require to be ring-fenced. Cabinet had decided the percentage, which is 16 percent, out of the Gaming Duties Act. But this is better flexibility. What we know, through this, is that the Cabinet can actually reduce the amount that was meant to be ring-fenced for community.
Now, I brought in a simple amendment—I brought a simple amendment; a common-sense amendment that would ensure that it could not go below what the committee wanted, which was 4 percent—25 percent of the actual gambling duties. But it was voted down. So you put that at risk, something that, actually, the community, in their thousands, asked for. We know from this that there are many demographics that are hugely affected by gambling: Māori, Pacific people, young people, people with disabilities are all more likely to be impacted by gambling.
I just want to quickly touch on just a couple of what they said in my short time left. I’ll pick up—which one shall we do? Brain Injury New Zealand, who obviously opposed this terrible bill. “We do not believe the bill’s harm minimisation provisions go far enough. Without stronger safeguards, online gambling may cause serious harm to vulnerable groups, particularly those with brain injury.”
Hon Melissa Lee: It already is doing harm. Jeez.
MIKE DAVIDSON: So you may heckle on the sides, but it is clear by what you are saying that you don’t care about the vulnerable people in our community that will suffer by this bill when it gets passed into legislation.
The Salvation Army: they recognise the need for effective regulation, like we do on this side. They were deeply concerned that the bill does not prioritise harm prevention and minimisation, and that the approach to regulation proposed is inadequate. Once again, this bill will cause harm.
We know that, actually, the consultation, the engagement with iwi was pathetic; it did not exist. The Pou Tangata chair, Rahui Papa, said, “Let’s be clear, this reform will expose more young people to risk. It is gambling harm by stealth.”
The Asian Family Services: “The substance of the Bill does not reflect the statutory objective of harm minimisation.”
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The member’s time has come to an end.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (11:36): Let’s be very clear: there are two options when we get to vote very soon. One, we do nothing. We let the current online gambling continue unregulated, no assistance for harm prevention, no money coming back to the community—nothing. Or we vote for this legislation. It’s not just GST; it’s not just gambling harm. It is money going to community organisations.
Now, I agree; I didn’t like where the ACT Party started with the bill. That is why we have fought hard, and National has delivered community returns. I held public meetings in my electorate, I met with everyone and every group that would, and we have fought hard for and delivered community returns. By voting against it, they are voting for no money at all to go to our community.
Who was it who asked for a national self-exclusion register? It was the National Party. Who is it that’s delivering money for our community? The National Party. Greens and Labour talk a big game. They’re delivering nothing for our community. They’re opposing only good things. National Party are proud to support this. I commend the bill.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (11:37): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, this bill recognises that we live in what is an increasingly digital world. It is a world that, in many areas, is a world without borders. Of course, we know that most of us transact business via email rather than by letters. Most of our business is done via online banking rather than going down to the bank branch. Of course, in the retail area, increasingly, bricks and mortar is challenged by online retail. That is true of gambling even more so.
The thing I agree with Mike Davidson on is that he said that it is growing very fast. The Governance and Administration Committee heard that, roughly, New Zealanders are gambling something like $800 million a year, and that is growing very fast. I think even the number used was something like 1,500 percent in a very short period of time. It’s not going to go away. The point that Tim Costley has just made is you can either regulate that, or you can leave it alone.
What we heard from Labour and the Greens today—they’ve focused a lot on harm, but we didn’t hear a lot of that at the select committee. We had a bit of discussion; we made some changes. The changes we made were very collaboratively done, for example, making it easier to self-exclude—we did that. It wasn’t just the National Party; it was a collective effort. We also said that we can allow to regulate to say you can’t use credit to gamble—very sensible as well. But what the Opposition are not recognising is that that digital world is here and it is not going to go away.
So what we are seeing is more and more—if you like, it’s the wild west—of these overseas-owned cowboys, effectively, coming in and encouraging New Zealanders to gamble online. This bill is the sheriff. This bill is the sheriff coming into town to better protect New Zealanders and to ensure greater benefit for New Zealand. What the Opposition—as Tim Costley just said—seems to be saying is that by not passing the bill, somehow all of this is going to go away, but it’s not. It’s just going to get more and more and more, and it’s going to be unregulated. So the question is, do you want the wild west, or do you want the sheriff? I am on the side of the sheriff in saying we want to regulate this and do a better job.
What this bill does is to establish a three-stage process—it’s quite a rigorous process—to issue up to 15 licences. Now, we did hear concerns about whether 15 was too many. Some people said it should be unregulated, uncapped, which would be even more, but we didn’t really have a great deal of evidence to say what the right number would be, nor did we have a great deal of discussion in the select committee. We got an alternative view from the Labour Party at the end of it, but we didn’t have a lot of discussion within the committee to say, “Actually, this is the number and this is why the number.” So there are a bit of crocodile tears being shed here by the Opposition in that area as well.
Look, the idea here is that if you have a substantial number of licensed organisations you give some choice as to who people are going to gamble with if they’re going to gamble. I don’t understand why they do it, but if they’re going to gamble it’s safer to do that in a swimming pool that is regulated than to get into the river that is unregulated, with the alligators. That’s your choice: you have a swimming pool that is regulated, you can choose which pool you want to go into, or you’re in the river with the alligators.
It also allows some education. It also allows the operators to promote themselves so that people are actually going to say, “I know these people, I know they’re regulated, and I will go with them rather than with somebody who is the alligator in the river.”. I do note, though, that this House has, in terms of promotion and advertising, of course, said that it’s quite happy with advertising going to greater levels on some of the days which people might find somewhat confronting; I’m thinking of Easter, Anzac, and Christmas. So we’ll just see how that goes. It’s good that we’ve got a review in there.
As we’ve heard, we had a lot of feedback on this. The sports community were really, really quick to get organised. They did a lot of work. They were very united, and they provided very strong and well-articulated feedback. Their issue was community benefit and what they saw as the threat—and it’s an existing threat; the online gambling is there, it’s growing, and it’s an existing threat to class 4 revenue. I’ve been on both sides of this as a person giving grants out and also as part of organisations which have received grants. That money is essential to many of our sporting and community organisations. So they were rightly concerned that online gambling and the growth of online gambling, if there was nothing to compensate for that, was going to be a real concern, an existential threat, potentially, to them.
We’ve had, essentially, a long-term social contract—and it’s in the Gambling Act 2003—that we know that gambling can be harmful. We know that and nobody would disagree with that, but the contract really is that as a result of that we’re saying that gambling comes alongside community benefits, so that the proceeds of gambling go to community benefit. The problem with the bill, and I completely agree with what Tim Costley said here, is I don’t think any of those in that select committee—ACT is not represented in that select committee—liked the bill as it was introduced. That issue of no community benefit was a real problem. Our submitters saw this as breaching that social contract. As we’ve already heard, of the 4,837 submissions that we received, about 3,966 of them—so most of them—raised that issue of community returns.
As I said, there was real concern about the erosion or potential erosion of online gambling eroding terrestrial class 4 gambling. We heard that message. I think parties across the House heard that message. Obviously, the Minister for Internal Affairs and Cabinet heard that message and I’d say well done to her for listening and for making the change and for setting aside that 4 percent of gross revenue for community benefit. And, actually, I agree; if that 4 percent was higher, I think that would be a good thing because the biggest beneficiary, not only of this, but also all forms of gambling actually is the Government. The Government could think—doesn’t matter whether it’s a red-led Government or blue-led Government—about whether in fact it gave more money from those proceeds to community and sporting organisations. That’s a decision that executives can make.
One last thing I did want to talk about was that the select committees often get tram lines within which they can look at amendments and we make quite a number of, I think, very useful amendments. There’s three I want to pick up that were specifically ones that I promoted. So they’re very much New Zealand First - type ones. The first one of them was picking up the Minister’s change—we knew that Cabinet was going to change, but we said “Let’s add to the purpose of the bill.” So into the purpose of the bill, clause 3 (e) now says that the purpose of the bill—“ensure that money from online casino gambling benefits the community.” So that reflects the change that Cabinet said that it wanted to make. It’s now in the purpose of the bill. Previously it wasn’t there.
Another issue which was raised by some of the submitters, particularly some of the community trusts in New Zealand—they said that they wanted to be able to be part of those 15 licences, and in doing that they’re more likely to give more money back to the community. So not only the 4 percent, but they are also—I mean, they are required to distribute their surpluses back to community. That’s a great thing. I said, “Look, can we be part of that?” And so there are two other changes there which make that more likely. The first of them is in clause 14, which requires licence applicants to disclose their intended contributions to New Zealand. Then clause 19 requires the Secretary of Internal Affairs to consider the scope of the licence applicant’s presence in New Zealand—whether they’ve got staff, a base, whatever it might be here—and their planned contributions to the community. So those things make it more likely that—we like putting New Zealand first—New Zealand-based organisations are more likely to be party to those licences.
We also made, in that same vein, amendments to ban synthetic lotteries. Why did we do that? To safeguard the Lotto New Zealand revenue, again because that Lotto New Zealand revenue goes to New Zealand community organisations. So all of those things are about making sure that more benefit goes not just to the Crown, but also to the community. Finally, as I’ve already mentioned, the changes that we made as a select committee to tighten up on harm minimisation, which I think were good.
There is provision, as you heard from the Minister, to review the bill. I think those things are really, really important because we want to see what has been the impact of increasing online gambling—if it does increase, to what degree?—on class 4 gambling. How well does the new system work? How well does New Zealand Lotteries manage it in terms of distribution? How the advertising provisions work, and how the harm minimisation provisions work, and all of those things are important to review. That’s a good thing.
I think that notwithstanding the protestations you’ve heard from the Opposition, this bill is a much, much better bill than it started. It regulates a potentially harmful activity, it improves safety, and it provides, now, for community benefit. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This is a five-minute split call. Oriini Kaipara.
ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (11:46): E te Pīka, tēnā koe. Today we reach the third and final reading of the Online Casino Gambling Bill, a law that will shape the digital gambling landscape of Aotearoa for generations to come.
On behalf of Te Pāti Māori and as the member for Tāmaki Makaurau, I rise grounded in the voices of whānau and Māori health providers and community organisations who submitted in unprecedented numbers. There are 61,000 people across Aotearoa currently experiencing harmful gambling—the same as the population of Rotorua.
For Te Pāti Māori, our compass is very clear. Mana motuhake—the right of our people to live with dignity and self-determination, mana ōrite—equity and fairness in all systems, and mana mokopuna—the protection of our children and future generations. When we test this bill against those values, it fails every single measure.
Mana motuhake—protecting the wellbeing and autonomy of our people. Look, Māori are 3.5 times more likely to experience problem gambling harm. That’s not an accident. It’s the result of decades of targeted gambling access in our poorest suburbs, and communities already carrying the weight of colonisation, poverty, and housing insecurity. Hāpai Te Hauora, the national Māori Public Health organisation, told us that online casino gambling is one of the most harmful forms of gambling: fast-paced, available 24/7, designed to keep people playing until they lose everything. They warned that this bill does not uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it does not embed Māori governance, and it does not protect Māori data or Māori decision making. Turuki Health and Māori providers across Tāmaki Makaurau echoed those same concerns. Gambling harm is intergenerational. It compounds stress, poverty, and whānau breakdown. Without strong protections, this bill will deepen inequalities and inequities for Māori.
Mana ōrite—fairness, equity, and community returns. Of the 4,837 submissions, 3,966 raised concerns about the loss of community returns. Class 4 gambling, for all its flaws, at least requires 40 percent of net proceeds to be returned to communities. But this bill allows offshore operators to extract profits with no obligation to reinvest in Aotearoa. The select committee has recommended increasing the gambling duty from 12 percent to 16 percent, and—
Andy Foster: Did you read the bill?
ORIINI KAIPARA: Yes, I did—and returning 25 percent of that duty to communities through the Lottery Grants Board. That is a good step but it is not equity. It is not mana ōrite because the truth is offshore companies will profit. Māori communities, in fact all communities across Aotearoa, will pay a heavy price.
Mana mokopuna—protecting our children and future generations. The number of rangatahi aged between 13—13—and 18 who have engaged in online gambling has risen to 52 percent. That is half of all our young people. This bill sets the online casino age at 18—18—years old, even though you must be 20 to enter a physical casino. That inconsistency exposes rangatahi to one of the most addictive forms of gambling at a younger age, on a device they carry in their pocket. Problem gambling is not an individual failure; it is a system failure. When that system harms our mokopuna, we have a duty to intervene.
What is next? As this bill turns into law, Te Pāti Māori will continue to hold future Governments to task to ensure they strengthen this legislation. Māori submitters have been very clear about what is needed: a complete ban on gambling advertising, including influencers and images of wealth; a centralised self-exclusion register that’s operational before licences are granted, not in 2027; a higher age limit; mandatory community returns; Māori co-governance; and stronger harm-minimisation tools. These are not just policy settings; they are expressions of our duty to protect our people. E te Whare, Māori organisations, health providers, and community groups have been unequivocal. They have told us that gambling harm is already devastating whānau, and this bill, when enacted, will make that harm worse. They have told us that our mokopuna, our future, deserve better. We oppose this bill.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (11:51): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Prior to coming to Parliament, I worked at the front lines with people on the benefit and people experiencing poverty. We served them every day as they came through our doors, often asking for hardship assistance to survive. During that time, I met many families whose lives had been wrecked by problem gambling. Other speakers have noted the issues of intergenerational impacts of problem gambling, and I saw those first hand. Families who have not received help had entered into such high levels of debt that they became homeless, or they were about to become homeless, and they were struggling to receive assistance from the agencies that were required to support them.
During that time, I also experience what other speakers noted, which was having, as a community organisation, to rely from funds from lotteries, knowing that your ability to serve the community had to come from funds that were directly gathered from harm that was being created as a result of gambling. That was a really, really difficult thing to have to juggle, coming from the community sector. Online gambling does need regulations, and we simply cannot accept the status quo. In scrutinising this bill, we are making a call to vote against it on the merit of the bill itself, not on whether online gambling should be regulated or otherwise.
I think others have spoken about some of the key issues that we have, and I particularly wanted to note how disappointing it is to see that there are no provisions basically prohibiting advertising. I think this is a huge misstep by the Government, particularly because, ultimately, we know that the companies that make profits out of creating misery and harm in our communities do target people that they know are more likely to be impacted by the harm that gambling, including online casino gambling, causes in our communities. Prohibiting advertisement would be one way to curtail the impact that these companies have on our communities.
I do want to note the attempts made by my colleague Mike Davidson to protect the funds that go to the communities. I echo his concerns around the fact that with the way that the bill is now written, there are no guarantees that at least 25 percent of that revenue is directed back into the community. That leaves it open for a future Government to basically decrease that and simply take more of that for just revenue gathering for the Government. I think this speaks of a conundrum that successive Governments have fallen into, of having no reliable and, in my view, ethical ways of resourcing our community sectors, including our community sports sectors who desperately need adequate resourcing. A lot of the grants that exist are grants that are, basically, created out of misery that is caused in our communities. You cannot, as Mike Davidson outlined, offset that harm through these means. You should not be putting community organisations’ ability to survive against harm that is caused in the community.
Something that I raised in the committee stage and committee of the whole House stage and that I do think deserves further work for the Government to explore is around the lack of explicit mention of loot boxes in this bill—I think this is something the Government should do further work on—loot boxes for people who participate in video gaming, particularly computer or mobile gaming. We know that loot boxes are basically a form of online gambling, and they wreck lives. They also target people below the age of 18 particularly. The harm that the loot-box system in video games causes to minors and to families cannot be understated. It’s an area that has not been adequately regulated, and we know from constituency feedback that it causes real financial harm to families. I tried to put in an amendment to add a definition of it so that it would be included in what we considered online casino gambling, but the Minister did not support it. If the Minister thinks that this wasn’t the place to regulate loot boxes, I highly encourage her to look at further work that should be done in this area.
I think that while we all agree in this House that online gambling causes real harm and destroys lives, what we haven’t had cross-party agreement on has been on how to tackle corporates that make profit out of misery. This is why the Green Party isn’t supporting this bill and calls on the Government to strengthen this piece of legislation.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (11:56): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think context in this debate is really important. At present, there is online gambling taking place in New Zealand, and this legislation creates regulation to say, “Enough is enough. We need to bring it into line. We need to have laws in place. We need to make sure we follow proper process, and then, also, we can provide support to those who are impacted by gambling harm across New Zealand.”
This is what this bill does. It says we can know who those people are, we can provide them the support they need, but also—and, importantly, as a local sports player and in many local teams in my community—it has a community-return component too, which is a really positive step for sporting and community organisations that receive lotteries grants. Now they will receive them also from online casino gambling. It’s a really positive step forward. It brings it into line to where New Zealand needs to go, so I commend it to the House.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (11:57): The characterisation from the Government about what’s going on is really fascinating. They’re talking about regulating an industry that does cause misery. What they haven’t said is that they are regulating it and expanding it at the same time. Listen to the words very closely from the lead Minister, who talked about creating “a competitive market”. Now, that’s a really insightful term there—“a competitive market”. Yes, there currently is online gambling, but it’s around the margins, and there certainly aren’t incentives at the moment for those operators to be competitive against each other in the way that the ACT Party and this particular Minister would like them to be. I think the National Party has fallen asleep at the wheel on this one. The Minister for Mental Health has been missing in action, and the crazy thing about this is that the regime to regulate the online gambling space has occurred, the decision has been made—the Cabinet papers show that—and then everyone’s scratching their heads and going, “What are we going to do to minimise harm?”
There was no discussion at the beginning about whether we even wanted this competitive market in our environment and whether the better opportunity would have been to say, “There is online gambling; what are we going to do to minimise it?”, rather than, “What are we going to do to expand it?” This is what has happened in reality, and that’s what happens when you have a coalition Government that is the tail wagging the dog, with the main party asleep at the wheel. The Minister for Mental Health—who likes to say that he’s the first Minister, and he’s all about creating wellbeing for New Zealanders—is allowing our young people to be at the behest of predatory international gambling organisations, who now have full licence, 15 of them potentially, to operate in New Zealand. That is what is going on with this bill, and that is why we oppose it.
I too would like to thank the 4,837 different people and organisations who submitted to the select committee. I didn’t get to sit there and listen, but I certainly did read many of the submissions, and I was here for the committee of the whole House stage. That was a fascinating process. On the one hand, we have the reality that this bill is going to allow young people, with their devices carried around with them 24/7, to be exposed to a new competitive advertising marketing regime on online gambling in their homes and away from harm’s way.
Then we have a Minister who did not seem to understand the difference between consumer protection and harm minimisation. I asked her very carefully in the committee of the whole House stage about whether she thought the harm minimisation element of this bill was strong enough. She gave answers that related to consumer protection. Now, consumer protection is things like making sure you’re not ripped off, being able to put yourself on to a register if you think you might be in harm’s way, but harm minimisation includes being able to protect young people or those who are already at harm from further harm. It means a positive duty of care on organisations that get licences to make sure they are not causing harm.
Those provisions are not in there, and, in fact, we’ve heard already that advertising and marketing, a critical part of this regime, have been relegated to secondary legislation. We don’t even know what that will look like. That means it will be subject to regulatory capture, because there is every incentive for those big international organisations to want to make sure that the regime is as narrow as possible. It is very difficult to tighten regulatory regimes on advertising in this kind of space once they have been set. How can we have a transparent conversation when we do not even know what those provisions look like?
It feels to me, really, like this is an ACT agenda, and I’m so sad that the National Party didn’t step up around the mental health side of this. We had a decision that was taken as a fait accompli. We had Cabinet papers that showed officials trying to grapple with harm minimisation and the levy for harm minimisation in the health space, acknowledging explicitly in those papers that a decision had already been taken to create this regime. That is silly. It’s flawed. It’s the right hand and the left hand not really being coordinated, and it shows that this has been led by an agenda outside of health.
Now, when we think about gambling, what is gambling designed to do? It is designed to get people involved in a way that they will spend more money. Why is it that in this House we can have very specific debates around details and minutiae about particular alcohol laws over Easter, and yet we do not have a conscience vote and we do not have a health approach on something that is going to open a tsunami of problem gambling and exposure to problem gambling for our young people?
We have a mental health crisis. Our youth have been recognised across the board, including by the mental health commission, including by the mental health Minister, as experiencing a crisis, as the front line of what is happening, particularly in the online space. We are having a debate about whether we should be changing the age rules for social media. On the other side of this, we are saying let’s create—not only create; expand—a competitive market for online gambling that our young people will be exposed to 24 hours a day. How on earth does that make sense? It is unintelligent and it is the cart before the horse.
Why were the public not able to have a discussion first about whether we even want this sector here, and if the reality is that we have it here, what are we going to do to make sure we minimise the harm? That should be the first principle. It should not be about a tax grab. It is not our young people’s fault that this Government could not make their fiscals work and looked around desperately to try and find where they could get some revenue from and thought, “Oh yeah, gambling—that’s a good one. Never mind the harm. Let’s get this through quickly. Let’s allow our mental health Minister to go silent. Let’s put it in internal affairs and take the wrong approach and put not only this generation but future generations at risk.” Unacceptable.
I know this. I’ve seen the documents. I have seen the sequencing that things happened in, and I have heard, with my own unbelieving ears, the Minister’s response to my questions on harm minimisation, which showed she did not understand what that meant.
Let’s think about what some of the provisions do. The advertising is being put into secondary regulation. There is risk of regulatory capture there. There is no duty of care anywhere in the bill to try and find some way of capturing the harm that could be happening to young people who are skipping across multiple sites. It is all predicated on the assumption that somebody will go on to a site and, if alarm bells ring because they’ve been on there for a long time, there will be some kind of red flag. But gamblers don’t do that. They go across sites. The Minister was given that evidence in this House and asked the questions. She refused to do anything about that.
The Minister was given the evidence about loot boxes. She was given the evidence about loyalty awards, around spins, around the very close link with gamification. These are all massive loopholes in this law, because the definition section is not at pace with the reality that is occurring for our young people. Ricardo Menéndez March, myself, and others tried to alert her and say, “Minister, if you are really intent on ramming this through the House, at least put some real protections in for our young people.” But, no, none of that has been addressed, so the harm will continue for those people, and that’s unacceptable.
I recently met with Dr Kelly Feng, who many people in this House know, from Asian Family Services. They are, in some ways, the last cab off the rank to get mental health funding, and it is not because they don’t do an outstanding job—they do. The problem is because they do not know what they do not know about their community. They cannot measure what is not coming through the medicalised door when it comes to gambling harm. Anecdotally, there is a huge amount of evidence and a picture of young Asian New Zealanders in particular with gambling problems, but because they do not go through doctors’ doors or access and Choice programmes, they are not counted. What is going to happen to that community, and how are people like Dr Kelly Feng, who is so committed to serving them, going to be able to provide the tools to be able to clean up the mess and the harm that this Government is proliferating through this unconscionable, immoral, and ill-thought-through bill that they are doing just for a tax grab?
I implore the National Party to find your chops and think about the mental health aspects. Get your Minister to do some advocacy, because he has been completely missing in action, and join us in voting against this bill instead of throwing our young people under the bus.
Hon MELISSA LEE (National) (12:07): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Listening to that speech actually shows that that member was not present during the select committee process. People listening to this debate will be under the impression, mistakenly, that online gambling doesn’t currently exist and that the harm isn’t actually happening. The statistics that were quoted by some members opposite, who talked about the harm that is already here and actually affecting our communities, are correct. The previous Government didn’t do anything for six years about this. It has been around for a while. It didn’t just all of a sudden appear, and we’re not introducing the harm. It already exists in our communities. It exists.
This bill actually minimises that. What we’re trying to do is regulate, because otherwise it is out there already, we’re not collecting taxes from those businesses, and we don’t even know if they’re doing any harm minimisation work. They’re actually happening. This bill regulates, tries to provide harm minimisation work, and actually delivers to the communities who can benefit from the profits. Mr Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (12:08): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As I rise and have been listening throughout this debate, as many people have said, and the previous speaker, we’re talking about harm here. We’re talking about individuals. We’re talking about families. We’re talking about communities. I don’t know experiences that members in this Chamber have had when it comes to gambling hurt and harm, but I know in my own family, I have a family member who, unbeknownst to many of us, ended up, within their own home, in an online gambling addiction, which caused great harm—in fact, a relationship breakdown—because of the addiction and because of the allure and because of the in the shadows that online gambling creates.
I also have one of my foster boys who got into the pokies a long time ago. As much as that is harmful—and it is—it was visible and it could be visually regulated, in terms of he was actually banned. He was on the register, and so he would go to the pokies and his photo was there and he wasn’t able to enter them.
Sadly, again, because of challenges, he found the world of online casino gambling, and that addiction has continued. We’ve done work, and hopefully there’s a way through it, but it is a challenge. Yes, emotions are high; yes, people are passionate; yes, we must do something about this. But, again, it’s not just words in this Chamber; it’s not just words on the bill, which will become an Act. It’s actually about the lives of young people, the lives of old people, the lives of all cultures where it happens. Let us pause and remember that.
As a Labour Party, yes, we are going to oppose this, and I want to thank our lead on this, my colleague Lemauga Sosene, who has led us well in terms of not only the select committee but talking us as a caucus through why we should be standing up and saying no. Yes, all the way through, it’s been “We must be doing something, we must be doing something”—we must find a way through—but, in many ways, there have been moments as this bill has traversed the House where it has seemed rushed at times. There were changes that were made at the committee of the whole House and that were made quite quickly. I’m not sure, because of those changes, if we should potentially slow things down and maybe take it back to select committee to unpack it a bit more. Yes, we must change it, but what is the point of changing it if we don’t get it right—if we come back into this House in a year or two and have to play around with it yet again because we haven’t got the settings right, and it actually isn’t helping people, and it isn’t helping the harm? We support regulation; we began regulation on this; and we must keep leaning in and figuring it out.
Now, we’ve had conversations as well—and I heard a previous Government member speak about the fact of helping communities and putting money back into communities. The question is: at what cost do we do that? Community returns—yeah, they maybe potentially can come from the dividends from online gambling, but is that worth it when harm is done within communities and within families? I look at the submission from the Salvation Army; they ran the Oasis programme for problem gamblers—I think it was from the mid-1990s until about five or 10 years ago when the funding dried up for them and they weren’t able to provide that service. The service was so necessary because this is one of those addictions, one of those issues, like many, that crosses whether you’re well-to-do, whether you’re rich, whether you’re poor, whether you’re working class—it crosses through everything. The question for me is: is sustainable wellbeing, in terms of getting a bit more cash into the community, worth it when we cannot be building and dealing with problem gambling issues?
We need to find good policy; we need to find a way through. This is not it, and we cannot in good faith support this bill. We oppose this bill. We suggest, potentially, why not take it back to select committee? Why not pull it apart again so we can get it right and ensure that people, that communities, that families who are struggling with online gambling will get the help and support they need?
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (12:13): It is a great honour to rise in support of the Online Casino Gambling Bill in this third reading. Online gambling is in New Zealand; it is widely accessible on many devices, and currently, it is unregulated.
It is surprising that the other side don’t actually want to support this bill. They talk about the harm; they did nothing, for six years, about dealing with the harm of online gambling. This is making sure that it’s a level playing field. Some of that money is going to go towards our community—[Interruption] Pity they weren’t so loud and getting up and talking during the last Parliament to actually do something. This is actually making sure that money can go towards our community organisations and we can help minimise the harm. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.
Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (12:14): It doesn’t matter what side of this debate we’re on, we all know, in this House, that the harm from gambling is hideous. We’ve heard today from people who have had firsthand experience; we’ve heard from people who maybe have had second-hand experience; but most of us can make a connection to someone or people who have had harm from gambling.
It’s not really recognised alongside the other addictions that we hear about. My colleague Ingrid Leary kind of talked about that, and the way that we even vote upon that in this House. If we have a vote in this House on a bill that’s around alcohol, that usually goes as a conscience vote, but here we’re talking about just as horrific an addiction, in the form of gambling, and we’re not taking that same approach. It’s the same for our support people who help the people who suffer from addictions in society and in the community. They don’t get the same support that other people do—that other groups do. They don’t have the same sort of revenue that comes in to them.
In fact, my colleague talked about Oasis and the good work that Salvation Army did through their Oasis programme. I think it was 31 years that they were delivering support for gambling harm. In fact, in 2024, their revenue dried up—so it wasn’t 10 years ago; it was only two years ago that their revenue dried up. We lost a great organisation that supported people. I’ve seen families drawn and pulled apart because of gambling; I’ve seen mums who are living in poverty and trying desperately to provide for their family who have got hooked into the gambling mode. I’ve seen them ripped apart from their families because of what gambling has done to them. It is absolutely hideous.
Do you know what, I’ve heard from the other side—they’re saying that Labour wants to do nothing here, and that is not the case. We want to see regulation, but not regulation that potentially makes it more permissive, and that’s exactly what this bill does. It has the potential to make online gambling more permissive. Now, nobody is saying, as I’ve heard from the other side today, that online gambling doesn’t exist already. It is getting bigger and bigger all the time, but this bill has the potential for it to become even greater and more permissive. I want to spend my contribution here walking through how that is the case. I fear, from the debate that I have heard here today, that there is not a lot of understanding around what the potential hazards are in this bill.
Firstly, I want to talk about the fact that we have no understanding from this bill of what the harm minimisation will be. We’re concerned that it leaves most of that harm minimisation to the Minister and to regulations. Now, if we’re talking about land-based gambling—and I’m going to talk about class 4, and that’s the pokies with the land-based gambling—there are responsibilities on the host of those machines. They are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but those responsibilities do exist. That is things like ensuring that they’re checking in on the gambler after a certain amount of time; that is ensuring that we haven’t got one person that’s stuck at a machine for hours and hours on end; that is ensuring that there is the right support there, going and having a conversation, and that there is not an ATM right beside where the gambling is happening. Those host responsibilities are about exclusion as well. The host has to exclude after a certain amount of time. Those host responsibilities happen for a reason: to ensure that our people are kept as safe as they possible can be.
Now, how can you possibly do host responsibilities with online gambling? That’s a question that, when I was Minister of Internal Affairs, I asked myself over and over again. We didn’t have the technology to do that back in 2021. But, guess what, we have the technology, and it’s working in jurisdictions across the world now. That technology exists, through artificial intelligence, to have host responsibilities that would exclude gamblers right from the word go. The Minister knows about this, but the Minister has refused to put this into the bill, so we open up advertising, and we don’t have that technology that can exclude people that are over and over in repetitive gambling right at the start. The advertising’s there, luring them in all the time. That has the potential to be more permissive than what we’ve ever seen in the online space before. I say to the other side: be careful of the unintended consequences that you are putting in place today. That is why we are taking a stance to stand against this bill.
Also, I want to talk about the number of licences. We’ve heard that here. I do believe in a licensing regime, but 15 licences for our population makes us as permissive as the UK, which is the most permissive gambling jurisdiction in the world. That’s what we’re doing today. We’re making it more permissive than ever, and we don’t have the moral obligation with it going to auction. I don’t disagree about how it’s being done, but I’m saying with that going to auction and being on the open market, there is a potential that we won’t have people from our local country or organisations from our local country being able to win at that auction. Therefore, that means no company that is involved in this could have the moral obligation back to our country.
Let’s take one example of that: Skycity are a provider of online gambling who are offshore currently. They have their online site offshore because they can’t legally run it in New Zealand. They, potentially, might not be successful at that online auction, yet they have a moral obligation because they are a big company linked back to this country. We might not have them or any other New Zealand company involved in winning any of those online auctions. We could have companies that don’t give a damn about the moral fibre of this country winning at that auction. That’s what this bill does, and that’s the problem that we see with it. I want to see an online regime here. I want to see something that’s going to keep New Zealanders safe, but this bill has the potential to do exactly the opposite.
To me, I can’t morally vote for it, because I have seen that damage. When I was up, once as Minister, in Whangārei, I walked through a library, and the library people were telling me about all of the wonderful free internet that they were providing with their computers. Every single one of those computers—all 15 of them—was on an online gambling site. I want to see protections, but this bill has the potential to go in the absolute opposite direction. It pains me that we don’t have something on the Table here today that is going to keep New Zealanders safe. That is what you are voting on today. The other side is voting on a bill that has the potential to do the exact opposite of what has been said.
I am never going to be in a place where I am going to put New Zealanders and the people that I see that are unsafe in this area at harm any more. I am willing to work on a solution, and I am willing to sit down and come to something that is cross party in this area, because I think we owe it to New Zealanders. I also think we owe it to New Zealanders to have a broader discussion on the community funding. While I agree with what has happened overall, my heart says we need to look at how we can decouple that community funding and look at other ways, because it is completely immoral that we are propping up our brilliant community organisations on the back of such harm. We need to have that serious discussion, and I hope that we can be adult enough to have that in the next short while. It pains me, but I cannot support this bill.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (12:24): I am personally against gambling. I was told that enjoying gambling, drugs, alcohol, and smoking isn’t a path to a stable life in New Zealand. In my ideal world, we should ban any form of gambling, but we need to be realistic. Online gambling does exist. Online platforms are now making global gambling accessible at any moment, exposing more people to harm. This bill will not stop people from online gambling. However, it does take the necessary steps by closing those loopholes and bringing greater oversight to online gambling. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Online Casino Gambling Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (12:26): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I might be mistaken, but I was pretty sure the Greens voted 14 votes, which would make it not 55 votes, but 54.
Celia Wade-Brown: I did say 14.
DANA KIRKPATRICK: I think it’s the calculation, Mr Speaker. It’s 54, not 55.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): OK. The Ayes are 68; the Noes are 54. The question is still agreed to. Fast maths over there. Congratulations!