Free Bets Aren't Free

Across the Tasman, something significant just happened. Australia's Prime Minister has publicly acknowledged that his country needs to do more to protect children from gambling advertising and sever the normalised link between betting and sport. For a nation that has spent 30 years allowing gambling companies to operate with extraordinary freedom, exposing generations to an advertising blitz of staggering scale, that acknowledgment represents a genuine turning point. New Zealand should be paying close attention. We are standing at our own crossroads: with online casino regulation now moving through Parliament and the Racing Industry Amendment Act already providing the regulatory foundations to act on sports betting advertising, we have a narrow but real opportunity to make different choices.

The policy case for licensing up to 15 online casino operators rests on channelisation - the idea that bringing offshore gambling into a regulated domestic market will redirect consumers toward safer, harm-minimisation-compliant platforms. It is a legitimate policy goal. But channelisation must not become a justification for normalisation. The goal of gambling regulation should be consumer protection, not market expansion. These are not the same thing, and we cannot afford to confuse them. 

The proposed advertising restrictions use strong language but contain all the familiar loopholes. They do not reflect how young people actually consume content today -through streaming platforms, social media, short-form video, and highlight reels. Rules written around traditional broadcast media will not protect a generation that has never watched live television in their lives. 

But of all the loopholes in this framework, none is more dangerous than the treatment of inducements. The online casino regulations will allow bonuses and promotional offers to be advertised using direct marketing to existing account holders, or on an operator's own platform - keeping them out of public-facing advertising. Despite the Cabinet paper agreement being clear that advertising must not encourage impulsive gambling, inducements are one of the strongest drivers of exactly that. Restricting where a bonus offer or advertisement appears does not change what it does. A $1600 deposit bonus from Jackpot City sent to you at midnight is not made safer because it arrived via email rather than a billboard. 

The research is unambiguous. A 2025 systematic review published in Addiction found that inducements which reduce the perceived risk or cost of gambling are among the most influential drivers of increased betting behaviour, and their impact is greatest on people already experiencing harm (McGrane et al., 2025). The online casino regulatory framework underestimates how adaptive gambling marketing is. Unless inducements are prohibited outright and advertising is tightly defined, exposure will continue. 

While much of the focus has been on the incoming online casino operators, the TAB continues to advertise with virtually no sector-specific regulatory constraints. Beyond the Advertising Standards Authority's gambling code, they have free rein. They face no channelisation pressure - they are a state-owned monopoly that already blocks offshore competition. So, what is the justification for the current regulatory gap? The Racing Industry Amendment Act leaves the door open for advertising regulations. Yet we are waiting. Meanwhile, young New Zealanders, particularly young men, are being exposed to gambling advertising at a scale and intensity that is genuinely unprecedented: bonus offers, deposit matches, "bring a friend along" promotions, and former All Blacks discussing the odds before and after major rugby matches. 

We would not condone a cigarette advertisement offering two packs for the price of one. We would not accept a liquor promotion that rewarded someone for drinking alcohol. So why do we accept a bonus bet that rewards someone for gambling (or rewards two people if they bring a mate along). 

Australia has already run it. Generations of Australians have been exposed to an advertising blitz of staggering scale and now their own Prime Minister is acknowledging the damage. As the Alliance for Gambling Reform notes in their April 2025 newsletter, even the reforms now heading to the Australian Parliament represent a timid response to thirty years of inaction. 

New Zealand does not have to repeat that experiment. We have the evidence. We have the regulatory moment. What we need is the boldness to act - to prohibit inducements across all gambling advertising, to close the loopholes before they are exploited, and to ensure that consumer protection, not market growth, is the animating principle of everything that follows. 

The horse has not yet fully bolted. But we can hear it chomping at the bit.