Email from Betfair yesterday:
We are writing to let you know that, due to a new prohibition that was recently inserted into the Racing Industry Act 2020 (NZ) (Legislative Amendment), Betfair will soon be making a change to its market offering to New Zealand customers.
We advise that, from 23 July 2025, Betfair will no longer be offering racing and sporting markets to our customers residing in New Zealand (Upcoming Change).
We note that:
non-racing and non-sports markets (including political markets and other speciality markets) will not be impacted and will continue to be offered to New Zealand customers;
your account will remain active, and any available balance is fully accessible for withdrawal at your convenience; and
if you currently hold positions in long-term racing or sports betting markets, you may continue to trade those positions until 11:59 PM NZST on 22 July 2025. Please note that after 22 July 2025, you will no longer be able to place bets, view markets or manage positions on any racing or sports markets.
We apologise for any inconvenience caused by the Upcoming Change and the poorer user experience. Unfortunately, Betfair has to make the Upcoming Change to comply with the Legislative Amendment.
Amendment to law will stop New Zealanders using Betfair
I reached out to Betfair Head of legal - David Skene -Not helpful but gota relpy within 30mins see this reply below.
i do feel that an Australian company could lodge a complaint under the CER agreement
ATTN David Skene – Head of Legal
Betfair Pty Ltd (Australia)
Level 18, 580 George Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Australia
(Email: [email protected])
Re: Request for Betfair to consider a CER‑based complaint against New Zealand’s Gambling Amendment Act 2025
Dear Mr Skene,
I am a long‑time New Zealand customer of Betfair’s exchange and write to alert you to what appears to be a clear breach of the Australia–New Zealand Closer Economic Relations (CER) Trade Agreement.
The Gambling Amendment Act 2025 now:
Prohibits all offshore bookmakers—including Betfair—from serving New Zealand residents;
Grants TAB NZ an exclusive monopoly, despite its joint‑venture with a foreign operator (Entain).
Why this looks CER‑inconsistent
Gambling isn’t on NZ’s “negative‑list.” Under the 1988 CER Protocol on Trade in Services, Australian service suppliers are entitled to the same market access as domestic providers unless a sector is expressly “inscribed”—gambling never was.
Article 18 exceptions are narrow. They allow restrictions only to protect public morals, prevent crime, etc., and require measures to be non‑arbitrary, proportionate, and not disguised trade barriers. A blanket foreign ban alongside a state‑backed monopoly fails that test.
Article 22 consultation trigger. When one party frustrates the Agreement’s objectives, the other may request consultations. New Zealand has neither sought a waiver nor commenced consultations with Australia.
Why Betfair’s voice matters
As a leading Australian‑licensed betting exchange with robust harm‑minimisation controls, Betfair has strong standing to:
Urge the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade (DFAT) to initiate Article 22 consultations on behalf of affected Australian service suppliers; and/or
Send a formal brief to New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade (MFAT) detailing the discrimination and requesting dialogue.
Such action would defend Betfair’s commercial interests and uphold the non‑discriminatory principles that underpin CER—benefiting punters and competition on both sides of the Tasman.
Thank you for considering this request.
Ngā mihi nui,
Desmond (redacted)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
David Relpy
Hi Desmond
Thanks for reaching out.
As you can imagine, we are very disappointed that the new prohibition has been introduced. We lodged submissions, opposing the new prohibition, with various parties/stakeholders including the relevant ‘Select Committee’ that considered the Bill. Our CEO also appeared before the Select Committee and made representations as to why Betfair should be allowed to continue offering racing/sporting markets to NZ residents. Unfortunately, our submissions/representations were not successful. We have also considered the application of the relevant AUS/NZ trade agreements.
At this point in time, we won’t be taking any further action on this, and will comply with the new prohibition.
I wish you the best for the future.
Kind regards,
David
David Skene
Legal and Compliance Director
Betfair Pty Ltd
i do feel that an Australian company could lodge a complaint under the CER agreement
ATTN David Skene – Head of Legal
Betfair Pty Ltd (Australia)
Level 18, 580 George Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Australia
(Email: [email protected])
Re: Request for Betfair to consider a CER‑based complaint against New Zealand’s Gambling Amendment Act 2025
Dear Mr Skene,
I am a long‑time New Zealand customer of Betfair’s exchange and write to alert you to what appears to be a clear breach of the Australia–New Zealand Closer Economic Relations (CER) Trade Agreement.
The Gambling Amendment Act 2025 now:
Prohibits all offshore bookmakers—including Betfair—from serving New Zealand residents;
Grants TAB NZ an exclusive monopoly, despite its joint‑venture with a foreign operator (Entain).
Why this looks CER‑inconsistent
Gambling isn’t on NZ’s “negative‑list.” Under the 1988 CER Protocol on Trade in Services, Australian service suppliers are entitled to the same market access as domestic providers unless a sector is expressly “inscribed”—gambling never was.
Article 18 exceptions are narrow. They allow restrictions only to protect public morals, prevent crime, etc., and require measures to be non‑arbitrary, proportionate, and not disguised trade barriers. A blanket foreign ban alongside a state‑backed monopoly fails that test.
Article 22 consultation trigger. When one party frustrates the Agreement’s objectives, the other may request consultations. New Zealand has neither sought a waiver nor commenced consultations with Australia.
Why Betfair’s voice matters
As a leading Australian‑licensed betting exchange with robust harm‑minimisation controls, Betfair has strong standing to:
Urge the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade (DFAT) to initiate Article 22 consultations on behalf of affected Australian service suppliers; and/or
Send a formal brief to New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade (MFAT) detailing the discrimination and requesting dialogue.
Such action would defend Betfair’s commercial interests and uphold the non‑discriminatory principles that underpin CER—benefiting punters and competition on both sides of the Tasman.
Thank you for considering this request.
Ngā mihi nui,
Desmond (redacted)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
David Relpy
Hi Desmond
Thanks for reaching out.
As you can imagine, we are very disappointed that the new prohibition has been introduced. We lodged submissions, opposing the new prohibition, with various parties/stakeholders including the relevant ‘Select Committee’ that considered the Bill. Our CEO also appeared before the Select Committee and made representations as to why Betfair should be allowed to continue offering racing/sporting markets to NZ residents. Unfortunately, our submissions/representations were not successful. We have also considered the application of the relevant AUS/NZ trade agreements.
At this point in time, we won’t be taking any further action on this, and will comply with the new prohibition.
I wish you the best for the future.
Kind regards,
David
David Skene
Legal and Compliance Director
Betfair Pty Ltd
Only few hours left, nothing will change, this has been a done deal for the last few years. BF wont do anything as they are part of Entain and they have locked in a monopoly so of course BF say we will abide by they rules.
I now have to try and make money off sportsbooks of 112% and racing at 130%, I looked at the Golf and it was 142%.
I know many have made money off sportsbooks before so I am open to suggestions
I now have to try and make money off sportsbooks of 112% and racing at 130%, I looked at the Golf and it was 142%.
I know many have made money off sportsbooks before so I am open to suggestions
-
Kranthiyo1
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 2:10 am
Banning Betfair in New Zealand also effects Australian customers because we can't connect to New Zealand vpn to place in-play bets anymore. We have to call them and place a bet which I hate.
It gets worse, they have removed all markets except Politics and Special, so I can bet on the next James Bond. I was hoping I could still see these sports and record data but all gone, so there is no reason to even have Betfair or for that matter Bet Angel. I use to use Xg for goal prediction to compare to what I have so all that is gone, I got odds for football matches so I knew what is as close to fair odds as possible, all that gone.
I am on the verge of a tilt but I won't give them the satisfaction of getting my money.
That is my biggest problem now I hate the TAB with a passion so can't bring myself to take their odds. I cant relocate because I am nearing retirement age so I need to be in this country before I get to 65, so I would risk that and I am not making anywhere near enough to live off from Betfair. This is more a hobby for me it was the thrill of the chase rather than the betting. I am just pissed off at the moment maybe have a few days away may help.
I am on the verge of a tilt but I won't give them the satisfaction of getting my money.
That is my biggest problem now I hate the TAB with a passion so can't bring myself to take their odds. I cant relocate because I am nearing retirement age so I need to be in this country before I get to 65, so I would risk that and I am not making anywhere near enough to live off from Betfair. This is more a hobby for me it was the thrill of the chase rather than the betting. I am just pissed off at the moment maybe have a few days away may help.
My final thoughts on the implementation of the newly introduced gambling regulations in New Zealand.
In my view, the outcome was predetermined even before the select committee heard its first objection to the bill; it turned into a mere procedural formality that squandered both time and resources.
I closely followed the progress of this bill from its inception to its final stages, including the live streams. I was relentless in my outreach to the Commerce Commission, lawmakers, and the Government Ombudsman, yet to no avail. After three months of communication with the Commerce Commission (often referred to as Com Com), I received a call from them just days prior to the law’s enactment, expressing their regret that, despite their apprehensions regarding the sanctioned monopoly, they were powerless to intervene. This presents significant concerns.
For those unfamiliar with the function of the Com Com, here it is:
The Commerce Commission serves as New Zealand's main authority on competition, fair trading, consumer credit, and economic regulation. Commerce Act 1986: This legislation aims to promote competition in New Zealand’s markets for the long-term advantage of consumers. It encompasses both business competition and market oversight. Sections 2 and 3 of the Act: restrictive trading practices and business acquisitions. The Act forbids restrictive trading practices, which include cartel agreements (such as price-fixing or output limitation), the abuse of market power, and entering into agreements that significantly harm competition within a market.
Regrettably, though not surprisingly, no politicians responded constructively to my emails; the Government Ombudsman merely redirected me back to the Com Com.
This legislation was enacted following protocol, yet behind a veil of deception in my opinion. Aiming to rescue an industry that is NOT state-owned, the public was misled into believing that the $180 million lost to offshore bookmakers would remain in New Zealand if new laws were implemented. The primary line of deception was that Entain would help mitigate problem gambling due to its vast expertise. This argument was pivotal during the legislative debates. An objective view of this situation reveals that Entain is a publicly traded company whose main goal is profit; it is not in the best interest of its shareholders to act differently than any other regulated gambling entity. Their business thrives on the losses of individuals.
Unsurprisingly, the ongoing legal issues surrounding Entain were conveniently left out of the conversation, including the most recent case: On December 16, 2024, AUSTRAC launched civil penalty proceedings against Entain Group Pty Ltd, which manages online betting platforms such as Ladbrokes, Neds, and other betting brands. The proceedings allege that Entain has engaged in serious and systematic non-compliance with Australia’s AML/CTF regulations. This matter was skillfully avoided when a diligent journalist questioned the racing minister of NZ about it.
The public was not informed of the probability that the profits or percentage of profits generated by Entain would leave our country; it was never mentioned in the House. It is crucial to highlight that when Entain partnered with the NZ TAB, an extra $100 million was proposed if the government restricted competitors and granted a monopoly to the TAB/Entain alliance. Some may interpret this move as similar to a bribe.
My questions center on the TAB. What led to their failures? Why was a bailout considered necessary? A business should never fear competition when it is driven by foresight, innovation, creativity, and boldness. Competition is what propels you to elite status and compels you to remain ahead. There is no excuse; why are they not the top betting platform worldwide instead of Betfair? This is a question only management can answer.
New Zealanders, your government has undermined your capacity for fair trade and restricted you to a monopoly that favours the TAB/Entain partnership for the next 20-plus years, whether for leisure or business. This situation is worsened further by a rapidly evolving technological landscape in the betting industry, which the partnership may choose not to follow; they have a captive market—there is nowhere else for New Zealanders to bet. This is why monopolies are bad for consumers and, with no competition, can make companies sloppy with both the product and service they are providing to the consumer.
Summing up, I was born and raised in New Zealand and have dedicated my entire career here, employing 53 people in my businesses before retiring. I have decided to move to Australia and leave behind a country I once admired and respected. This new legislation is just one of many reasons I am leaving. New Zealand is filled with unrest, and this is escalating, with both central and local governments losing their grip on democracy. I will not elaborate on this statement; my advice to anyone considering a move to New Zealand is to do thorough research, stay informed about developments in the New Zealand Parliament, and follow independent media rather than government-controlled outlets before relocating.
Finally, if any Australians are reading this and know of available housing starting in January next year in Perth, Sydney, or Melbourne, please contact me.
In my view, the outcome was predetermined even before the select committee heard its first objection to the bill; it turned into a mere procedural formality that squandered both time and resources.
I closely followed the progress of this bill from its inception to its final stages, including the live streams. I was relentless in my outreach to the Commerce Commission, lawmakers, and the Government Ombudsman, yet to no avail. After three months of communication with the Commerce Commission (often referred to as Com Com), I received a call from them just days prior to the law’s enactment, expressing their regret that, despite their apprehensions regarding the sanctioned monopoly, they were powerless to intervene. This presents significant concerns.
For those unfamiliar with the function of the Com Com, here it is:
The Commerce Commission serves as New Zealand's main authority on competition, fair trading, consumer credit, and economic regulation. Commerce Act 1986: This legislation aims to promote competition in New Zealand’s markets for the long-term advantage of consumers. It encompasses both business competition and market oversight. Sections 2 and 3 of the Act: restrictive trading practices and business acquisitions. The Act forbids restrictive trading practices, which include cartel agreements (such as price-fixing or output limitation), the abuse of market power, and entering into agreements that significantly harm competition within a market.
Regrettably, though not surprisingly, no politicians responded constructively to my emails; the Government Ombudsman merely redirected me back to the Com Com.
This legislation was enacted following protocol, yet behind a veil of deception in my opinion. Aiming to rescue an industry that is NOT state-owned, the public was misled into believing that the $180 million lost to offshore bookmakers would remain in New Zealand if new laws were implemented. The primary line of deception was that Entain would help mitigate problem gambling due to its vast expertise. This argument was pivotal during the legislative debates. An objective view of this situation reveals that Entain is a publicly traded company whose main goal is profit; it is not in the best interest of its shareholders to act differently than any other regulated gambling entity. Their business thrives on the losses of individuals.
Unsurprisingly, the ongoing legal issues surrounding Entain were conveniently left out of the conversation, including the most recent case: On December 16, 2024, AUSTRAC launched civil penalty proceedings against Entain Group Pty Ltd, which manages online betting platforms such as Ladbrokes, Neds, and other betting brands. The proceedings allege that Entain has engaged in serious and systematic non-compliance with Australia’s AML/CTF regulations. This matter was skillfully avoided when a diligent journalist questioned the racing minister of NZ about it.
The public was not informed of the probability that the profits or percentage of profits generated by Entain would leave our country; it was never mentioned in the House. It is crucial to highlight that when Entain partnered with the NZ TAB, an extra $100 million was proposed if the government restricted competitors and granted a monopoly to the TAB/Entain alliance. Some may interpret this move as similar to a bribe.
My questions center on the TAB. What led to their failures? Why was a bailout considered necessary? A business should never fear competition when it is driven by foresight, innovation, creativity, and boldness. Competition is what propels you to elite status and compels you to remain ahead. There is no excuse; why are they not the top betting platform worldwide instead of Betfair? This is a question only management can answer.
New Zealanders, your government has undermined your capacity for fair trade and restricted you to a monopoly that favours the TAB/Entain partnership for the next 20-plus years, whether for leisure or business. This situation is worsened further by a rapidly evolving technological landscape in the betting industry, which the partnership may choose not to follow; they have a captive market—there is nowhere else for New Zealanders to bet. This is why monopolies are bad for consumers and, with no competition, can make companies sloppy with both the product and service they are providing to the consumer.
Summing up, I was born and raised in New Zealand and have dedicated my entire career here, employing 53 people in my businesses before retiring. I have decided to move to Australia and leave behind a country I once admired and respected. This new legislation is just one of many reasons I am leaving. New Zealand is filled with unrest, and this is escalating, with both central and local governments losing their grip on democracy. I will not elaborate on this statement; my advice to anyone considering a move to New Zealand is to do thorough research, stay informed about developments in the New Zealand Parliament, and follow independent media rather than government-controlled outlets before relocating.
Finally, if any Australians are reading this and know of available housing starting in January next year in Perth, Sydney, or Melbourne, please contact me.