New Zealand introduces credit card ban for online casinos

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/12/03: Australia’s credit card betting ban found to have had limited effect on heavy gamblers 2025/07/02: New Zealand introduces online casino bill to parliament 2025/08/04: New Zealand sporting organizations unite to oppose online gambling bill 2025/12/04: New Zealand online casino bill gains select committee approval

The Backstory

How the debate reached a tipping point

New Zealand’s move to prohibit credit cards for online casino payments is the latest turn in a fast-evolving effort to legalize and regulate internet gambling while tightening consumer protections. The government’s broader plan, the Online Casino Gambling Bill, would license up to 15 operators and bring offshore play into a domestic framework with standards on harm minimization and advertising. The bill’s ambition has been constant: channel existing online gambling into a controlled market, collect tax, and impose safeguards that do not exist in the gray market. But the path to passage has required steady concessions as opposition coalesced across political lines and civil society.

The policy push formally began with the government introducing the bill to Parliament, positioning regulation as a way to prioritize “harm minimization, consumer protection, and tax collection.” The framework includes a capped licensing regime and penalties for unlicensed platforms, including fines up to NZ$5 million. A planned auction for licenses aims to begin as early as February, with operation as soon as late next year, pending parliamentary approval. That opening gambit is detailed in the government’s introduction of the Online Casino Gambling Bill, which set the stage for the ensuing battle over details from community funding to ad limits.

Sport and community funding fears reshape the plan

A critical turning point came when more than 50 sporting organizations warned that legalization, as first drafted, risked starving local clubs of existing grant funding tied to gaming machines. Leaders argued the bill failed to require operators to return a share of profits to the community, calling that omission dangerous. Their coordinated push, explained in the unified opposition from sporting bodies, reframed the discussion from pure regulation to broader social impacts, particularly on grassroots sport.

Those concerns landed. The government later revised the bill to raise the offshore gambling duty to 16% from 12% and earmark the additional 4% for community funding, while setting aside a quarter of online gambling duty for the Lottery Grants Board to distribute. The move was pitched as ensuring that if the country regulates online casino play, benefits flow back to local groups. Lawmakers also promised a two-year review to assess any effects on existing grant systems. The recalibration is laid out in the government’s tax increase and community return amendments, which signaled the first major concession to broaden support.

From committee room to conscience vote

With those changes, the bill cleared a select committee that recommended it proceed, but the political arithmetic remained unsettled. The committee stage surfaced further concerns: an expected surge in gambling advertising as companies jockey for market share, acute risks to vulnerable communities, and a long runway for a national self-exclusion register that would not be ready until December 2027. The Greens, which earlier backed sending the bill to committee, joined Labour and the Maori Party in opposition. The government designated the final vote a conscience vote, making passage less predictable.

These dynamics are captured in the select committee’s recommendation and the political split. The panel cited nearly 5,000 submissions, most concerned about implications for community funding and harm. At the same time, officials indicated a crackdown on unlicensed offshore casinos would accompany any legalization, arguing the net effect would be a safer market with clearer limits.

Why credit cards became the bargaining chip

The government’s subsequent commitment to ban credit cards for online casinos emerged as the most striking sweetener aimed at undecided lawmakers. While licensing is projected to raise tens of millions from auctions, the credit card prohibition is being framed as a direct harm minimization step: reduce the chance that people use borrowed money to gamble and disrupt problematic spending patterns. The concession aligns with political demands for visible consumer protections that go beyond ads and taxes.

It also dovetails with the package that followed the committee process: a 16% duty rate on gambling revenue, a defined return of profits to communities, and a mandated 25% of duty to the Lottery Grants Board. Together, those measures are meant to answer both fiscal and social objections that have dogged the bill since June. The question now is whether the credit card ban tips enough votes in a conscience ballot to secure passage, or whether concerns about advertising volume, the delayed self-exclusion register, and market expansion outweigh the safeguards.

Advertising, enforcement and an uncertain runway

Even if the bill passes, implementation will be complex. Licensed operators would be able to advertise but under restrictions that have not fully muted warnings from the country’s advertising industry about a likely surge in marketing. Effective enforcement against offshore sites will be critical to the reform’s credibility; without curbing illegal operators, the legal market risks competing on an uneven field. According to the committee’s report and reaction, regulators expect to balance new legal channels with tougher action on unlicensed platforms, yet details on blocking, payment interdiction and penalties will determine outcomes.

Timing is tight. The government has targeted late next year for licensed platforms to go live, but key consumer tools trail that schedule. The national self-exclusion register, meant to be the backbone of harm prevention, is not expected until late 2027. That gap raises stakes for interim measures such as spending limits and the credit card ban to absorb some of the risk during the market’s early phase.

Lessons from Australia’s card ban

New Zealand’s decision to pull credit cards from online casino deposits echoes a similar move across the Tasman — and comes with caveats. Early analysis of Australia’s 2024 ban on credit cards for online wagering found limited impact on heavy gamblers. Many simply switched to transaction accounts and continued betting with modest disruption. Researchers reported that casual users were more likely to stop due to inconvenience, while frequent bettors had sufficient funds to keep gambling without borrowing.

Those findings, summarized in the e61 Institute’s assessment of Australia’s credit card prohibition, also flagged loopholes like cash advances and digital wallets, though heavy gamblers reportedly did not need them. For New Zealand, the takeaway is twofold: a card ban is visible and politically salient, but it may not materially curb high-risk gambling without complementary tools such as rapid self-exclusion, payment blocking across multiple rails and robust affordability checks.

That tension underscores the current moment. The credit card prohibition helps the government answer critics arguing the bill prioritizes revenue over safety. Yet evidence suggests the measure is most effective as part of a broader system that closes easy substitutes and provides real-time protections. With a conscience vote looming, lawmakers will weigh whether the latest concessions — higher taxes for community funding, stricter payment rules and promised enforcement — sufficiently limit harm while bringing a largely offshore activity onshore. The stakes are clear: a regulated market with defined safeguards or the status quo of unregulated play and limited recourse for consumers.