New Zealand new law is a backward step for racing

[nz-trader]

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.