A defensible regime with one glaring gap
The government has, on balance, done the sensible thing. Bringing a large, offshore, untaxed gambling market onshore into a regulated and taxed structure is exactly the kind of pragmatic policy this audience tends to support. The Online Casino Gambling Bill sets up a licensing process, an auction, and a duty regime, with the market expected to go live in December 2026 and expressions of interest for 15 licences opening within weeks.
The problem is not the framework. It is the single control the government has declined to install: any cap on how much advertising these operators can run.
What the rules cover and what they miss
In January 2026, Cabinet agreed to advertising regulations that ban a long list of content. No advertising jackpots, no influencer endorsements or affiliate marketing, no images or sounds suggesting coins and banknotes, and no ads within 30 minutes either side of broadcasts likely to attract child audiences. Every ad must carry harm-minimisation messaging.
All of that governs what an ad can say. None of it governs how many of them you see. Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden framed the package as designed to “limit or restrict harmful advertising while still enabling licensed operators to use a wider range of advertising tools.” As Problem Gambling Foundation chief executive Melissa Thompson warned in January 2026, “high volume advertising across 15 licences will inevitably increase exposure and thus harm.”
The cross-Tasman lesson NZ is choosing to relearn
Australia did not impose frequency and volume controls because it liked regulation. It did so after living through gambling advertising saturation, especially around live sport, that produced a political backlash. New Zealand’s DIA has confirmed it is monitoring Australia’s approach but does not plan to adopt similar restrictions immediately, preferring to watch how the Australian system performs first.
That wait-and-see posture sounds prudent. It is actually the opposite. The Australian experiment already ran. The result was heavy-handed retrospective regulation that the industry hated and advocates called too weak. New Zealand is about to reproduce the exact conditions that caused it: many competing operators, a live sports calendar, and no volume ceiling.
Why the money logic points the same way
The commercial rationale is honest. In March 2025, van Velden asked plainly “how do we ensure that it’s actually profitable enough or beneficial enough for someone to even want to bid for the licence?” The DIA’s own advice was that continuing an advertising ban would “substantially undermine the policy design” and lessen the value of the licences.
The market is worth fighting over. Gross gambling revenue liable for the Offshore Gambling Duty in the year to 30 June 2025 was $520.8 million, generating $62.5 million in duty. That is real tax revenue and a legitimate reason to build the regime. But without a volume cap, the competitive equilibrium among 15 operators is maximum spend. That means rising customer acquisition costs, compressed margins, and precisely the ad saturation that triggers a crackdown.
What it means for the businesses cashing in
Broadcasters and digital platforms are about to gain a lucrative new advertising category. Fifteen operators with no volume caps is significant new revenue, and demand for sports sponsorship will jump as brands compete for visibility. Back in March 2025, then-SkyCity chief executive Jason Walbridge warned that 15 licences was excessive, arguing seven was the sustainable maximum before “you and I and our kids get up and see gambling ads everywhere.”
Here is the catch for the operators and their media partners. The entire policy justification is channelisation, moving punters off offshore sites onto licensed, taxed ones, and advertising is the mechanism. But if the ad volume provokes a backlash before the market matures, the resulting clampdown could kneecap channelisation and torch the investment media companies build around this revenue. Everyone banking on the flood should want it managed.
The fix is cheap now and expensive later
The smart position is not opposition to gambling advertising. It is advocacy for frequency controls before 15 operators construct commercial infrastructure around unlimited volume. Once that infrastructure exists, tightening becomes a bruising political fight with vested interests. Australia has already shown New Zealand the ending of this story. The only open question is whether the government watches the sequel it has queued up, or writes a better one while it still can.
Sources
- Ad frequency loophole opens NZ to flood of online casino marketing – Newsroom (2026-07-12)
- Influencers and images of money to be banned in online gambling adverts – Newsroom (2026-01-15)
- Casino advertising approval prompts problem gambling fears – RNZ (2025-03-13)
- Regulatory Impact Statement – Online Casino Gambling Bill 2025 – regulation.govt.nz
- New Zealand not planning Australia-style sports gambling ads restrictions for now – NZ Herald