OIA2425 1095 Appendix A.pdf

under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

9(2)(b)(ii)
Hope that is somewhat useful for now but as above happy to discuss further,
Nick
Nick Roberts
Chief Executive Officer
[email address]
9(2)(a)
Asteron Centre, Level 10, 55 Featherston Street, Pipitea,
Wellington 6011
PO Box 618, Wellington 6140
tabnz.org | bobby.org.nz
Executive Assistant: Kaylea Nightingale | [email address]
under the Official Information Act 1982
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the addressee and is not necessarily the official view or
communication of TAB NZ. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the
information in it. If you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately. Thank you
Released
From: Nick Law <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2025 4:10 PM
To: Nick Roberts <[email address]>
Subject: TAB NZ/DIA meeting
Kia ora Nick

It was good to meet you at the end of last year. I hope you had a good break. We are now in full
swing preparing for select committee later this month on the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. I’ve
been talking to Hayden and Clare and we wanted to check the confidentiality of one aspect of the
Entain deal.
Given the priority and speed of the select committee process we anticipate the select committee
will ask us about the urgency. Part of the urgency relates to the 72.5m pro rata increase in
minimum uplift with the monopoly. We haven’t seen a lot of public commentary about the
minimum uplift, but there are some references to it. Is that part of the deal something we can
discuss with the select committee, acknowledging that doing so would effectively make it public
information? It would be good to get a steer on how commercially sensitive that aspect is.
Thanks, speak soon
Nick
Nick Law (he/him) | Policy Manager
Media Content and Online Safety
Toi Hiranga | Policy, Regulation and Communities
Te Tari Taiwhenua | Department of Internal Affairs
45 Pipitea Street, Wellington
DDI 9(2)(a)
dia.govt.nz | Facebook | LinkedIn
This email has been filtered by SMX | Powered by IT Works | For more information
visit itworks.co.nz
This email has been filtered by SMX | Powered by IT Works | For more information
visit itworks.co.nz
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Document 2
From:
Nick Roberts
To:
Nick Law; Clare Allison; Hayden Kerr
Subject:
Submitted version on Submission on Racing Industry Amendment Bill
Date:
Wednesday, 22 January 2025 10:59:50 pm
Attachments:
Outlook-y3ncrkbi.png
Outlook-mutpvthb.png
Outlook-wqsy3o0k.png
Outlook-zftea1fo.png
Outlook-4bnptpbr.png
Racing Industry Amendment Bill Submission by TAB NZ 22 January 2025.pdf
Hi Nick, Clare, and Hayden,
Please find attached TAB NZ's submission on the above Bill as an FYI, which we have lodged with
the Select Committee tonight.
Kind regards,
Nick
Nick Roberts
Chief Executive Officer
[email address]
9(2)(a)
Asteron Centre, Level 10, 55 Featherston Street, Pipitea,
Wellington 6011
PO Box 618, Wellington 6140
tabnz.org | bobby.org.nz
Executive Assistant: Kaylea Nightingale | [email address]
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the addressee and is not necessarily the official view or
communication of TAB NZ. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the
information in it. If you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately. Thank you
This email has been filtered by SMX | Powered by IT Works | For more information
under the Official Information Act 1982
visit itworks.co.nz
Released

Document 4
From:
Nick Roberts
To:
Nick Law
Subject:
Re: TAB NZ/ Select Committee
Date:
Monday, 27 January 2025 12:54:29 pm
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hi Nick - thanks again for the information. Sounds like we might be up with the second wave on 12
February. 9(2)(g)(ii)
From: Nick Law <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 10:36 AM
To: Nick Roberts <[email address]>
Subject: RE: TAB NZ/ Select Committee
Kia ora Nick,
We haven’t seen the list for attendees on Wednesday yet. We’ve been given the impression that
submitters appearing on Wednesday are being spoken to by the clerk of the Committee already.
You can email the Committee clerk here - [email address] they
will be able to tell you for definite what’s happening.
Sorry I don’t know more it’s been a bit slow getting information.
Nick
Nick Law (he/him) | Policy Manager
Media Content and Online Safety
DDI 9(2)(a)

From: Nick Roberts <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 27 January 2025 10:25 am
To: Nick Law <[email address]>
under the Official Information Act 1982
Subject: TAB NZ/ Select Committee
Hi Nick hope this finds you well after the weekend.
Understand that NZTR may have been booked in for the select committee on Wednesday? Just
wondering if that is an indication that TAB NZ will be called that day too? Mindful that our Chair is
Auckland based.
Released
Thanks
Nick

under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Class 4 funding to amateur sporting community (note 8): $3.54m
Duty Savings (note 8b): $3.01m
Provision for duty savings alignment in sports favour (note 16): $0.78m
$26.84m total
Hoping the above is helpful for you.
Nick
From: Hayden Kerr <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 12:49 PM
To: Nick Roberts <[email address]>
Cc: Nick Law <[email address]>; Clare Allison <[email address]>
Subject: Annual Report Query for hopefully quick response
Hi Nick
Congratulations again for Saturday.
I have a few things I’m trying to get clear in my mind before we meet again with the select
committee on Wednesday I’m hoping you can shed some light on.
In your cover statement on the latest annual report, you mention sports funding was a
record $26.5M but I’m trying to see where that all comes from so I must be missing
something. I see:
Payments to NSOs of $5.165 M on pg 28 , cash flows (I’m assuming this is
normal contact payments)
Additional Funding to NSOs of $5,074 M on pg 41 Other operating Expenses (I
assume this is the separate Extra Entain Funding)
Betting Duty Savings to the Sporting Community on Pg 42 of $3.010M
Gaming Grants to Sporting Community organisations on pg 41 of $3.535M
Can you let me know what I’m missing and if I’ve got the above correct?
Similarly, you mention $225 M to went Racing. I’m assuming this is comprised of the
under the Official Information Act 1982
following listed in outflows on pg 28:
$198.8 M betting net profits and distributions and payments to the racing
Industry
$ 28.9M gaming net profits and distributions and payments to the racing
Industry
Released
Is that correct? If so, just trying to work out where the $11.4M Betting Duty Savings on Pg
42 fits in – I assume it’s a component of the $198.8 M – correct? Does this mean there was
$183M in normal distributions to the codes ? Or was it the $150M Minimum guarantee ,
and there was some extra on top of that?
Sorry if I’ve missed something basic and/or gotten wrong end of stick. If possible if you
could let me know by tomorrow afternoon that would be awesome.

Cheers
Hayden
Hayden Kerr (He/Him)
Department of Internal Affairs | Te Tari Taiwhenua
| www.dia.govt.nz
Logo-test
This email has been filtered by SMX | Powered by IT Works | For more information visit
itworks.co.nz
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Collins-Tonge <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Annual Report Query for hopefully quick response
Thanks for that Nick. The breakdown would be useful thanks Josh if its not to much
hassle.
Cheers
Hayden
From: Nick Roberts <[email address]>
Sent: 11 March 2025 15:43
To: Hayden Kerr <[email address]>
Cc: Nick Law <[email address]>; Clare Allison <[email address]>; Josh
Collins-Tonge <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Annual Report Query for hopefully quick response
Hi Hayden
Happy for you to share with the Select Committee.
Regarding GBR, the split lands closer to 24% sport and 76% racing after accounting for the
provision balance from note 16 and Entain's reporting. The balances in note 8 also include
the amount paid to sport and racing in relation to FY23 which impacts the direct
conversion from the financial statements.
Josh Collins-Tonge (copied) can provide the breakdown of the duty savings figures from an
accounting perspective if helpful for you.
Cheers
Nick
Nick Roberts
CEO, TAB New Zealand
9(2)(a)
From: Hayden Kerr <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 11:43:45 AM
To: Nick Roberts <[email address]>
Cc: Nick Law <[email address]>; Clare Allison <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Annual Report Query for hopefully quick response
Hi Nick
under the Official Information Act 1982
Just checking that you would be Ok with us sharing this information with the Select
Committee tomorrow?
Also re the betting duty savings transferred sport ($3.01M) and racing ($11. 46M) –
GBR based formula in the regs this indicates sports is roughly 21% of GBR and Racing
is 79% - correct?
Cheers
Hayden
Released
From: Nick Roberts <[email address]>
Sent: 10 March 2025 15:30
To: Hayden Kerr <[email address]>
Cc: Nick Law <[email address]>; Clare Allison <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Annual Report Query for hopefully quick response

Hi Hayden - happy to assist. Please let me know if you need anything else at any stage.
Note 8 of the financial statements is the best point of reference to support the covering
letter figures, as our statement of cashflows includes timing differences between financial
years. For example, the $5.165m of NSO payments on page 28 relates to timing of
processing the FY22/23 one-off funding commitments.
The key difference between note 8 and funding to sport is statutory commission payments
to national sporting organisations through the year of $14.44m. These payments now
operationally reside within Entain's Financial Statements following the partnership,
however, have been included in total sector funding given the materiality of payments
processed by Entain.
For ease of reference, please find below an outline of racing and sport funding contributing
to the figures referenced in the cover letter (noting the totals include downward rounding
adjustments):
Racing industry
Standard distributions (note 8): $185m ($154m of minimum guarantee, $31m of
general reserves released)
Racing Integrity Board (note 8): $16.65m
Other Class 4 funding (note 8): $13.02m
Duty savings (note 8b): $11.46m
$226.13m total
Sporting sector
NSO commission payments (external source: Entain NZ financial reporting):
$14.44m
NSO one-off payments per strategic partnering arrangement (note 8b): $5.07m
Class 4 funding to amateur sporting community (note 8): $3.54m
Duty Savings (note 8b): $3 01m
Provision for duty savings alignment in sports favour (note 16): $0.78m
$26.84m total
Hoping the above is helpful for you.
Nick
From: Hayden Kerr <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 12:49 PM
under the Official Information Act 1982
To: Nick Roberts <[email address]>
Cc: Nick Law <[email address]>; Clare Allison <[email address]>
Subject: Annual Report Query for hopefully quick response
Hi Nick
Congratulations again for Saturday.
Released
I have a few things I’m trying to get clear in my mind before we meet again with the
select committee on Wednesday I’m hoping you can shed some light on.
In your cover statement on the latest annual report, you mention sports funding was
a record $26.5M but I’m trying to see where that all comes from so I must be missing

something. I see:
Payments to NSOs of $5.165 M on pg 28 , cash flows (I’m assuming this is
normal contact payments)
Additional Funding to NSOs of $5,074 M on pg 41 Other operating Expenses (I
assume this is the separate Extra Entain Funding)
Betting Duty Savings to the Sporting Community on Pg 42 of $3.010M
Gaming Grants to Sporting Community organisations on pg 41 of $3.535M
Can you let me know what I’m missing and if I’ve got the above correct?
Similarly, you mention $225 M to went Racing. I’m assuming this is comprised of the
following listed in outflows on pg 28:
$198.8 M betting net profits and distributions and payments to the racing
Industry
$ 28.9M gaming net profits and distributions and payments to the racing
Industry
Is that correct? If so, just trying to work out where the $11.4M Betting Duty Savings on
Pg 42 fits in – I assume it’s a component of the $198.8 M – correct? Does this mean
there was $183M in normal distributions to the codes ? Or was it the $150M Minimum
guarantee , and there was some extra on top of that?
Sorry if I’ve missed something basic and/or gotten wrong end of stick. If possible if
you could let me know by tomorrow afternoon that would be awesome.
Cheers
Hayden
Hayden Kerr (He/Him)
Department of Internal Affairs | Te Tari Taiwhenua
| www.dia.govt.nzunder the Official Information Act 1982
Logo-test
This email has been filtered by SMX | Powered by IT Works | For more information visit
itworks.co.nz
This email has been filtered by SMX | Powered by IT Works | For more information visit
Released
itworks.co.nz
This email has been filtered by SMX | Powered by IT Works | For more information visit
itworks.co.nz

Document 7
From:
Nick Roberts
To:
Nick Law
Cc:
Clare Allison
Subject:
Departmental Report
Date:
Tuesday, 18 March 2025 3:31:06 pm
Attachments:
Outlook-laq3gkvt.png
Outlook-q0chx4vs.png
Outlook-dmjwc0kz.png
Outlook-ivogglmd.png
Outlook-5o4gtwmq.png
Hi Nick - hope all well.
A novice question. Is the Departmental Report released by the Committee at some stage? Just
prepping my Board papers for next week.
Thanks
Nick
Nick Roberts
Chief Executive Officer
[email address]
9(2)(a)
Asteron Centre, Level 10, 55 Featherston Street, Pipitea,
Wellington 6011
PO Box 618, Wellington 6140
tabnz.org | bobby.org.nz
Executive Assistant: Kaylea Nightingale | [email address]
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the addressee and is not necessarily the official view or
communication of TAB NZ. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the
information in it. If you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately. Thank you
This email has been filtered by SMX | Powered by IT Works | For more information
under the Official Information Act 1982
visit itworks co.nz
Released

Document 8
From:
Nick Roberts
To:
Clare Allison; Nick Law
Subject:
Re: Catch up
Date:
Tuesday, 1 April 2025 10:50:31 am
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Great. Thanks. See you then.
Nick Roberts
CEO, TAB New Zealand
9(2)(a)
From: Clare Allison <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 10:06:22 AM
To: Nick Roberts <[email address]>; Nick Law <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Catch up
Hi Nick – I don’t think there is anything our end at this stage. Should be good timing to
talk next week with Vicki as we should be able to see a fairly firm timeframe forward
for the Bill by then.
From: Nick Roberts <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2025 9:34 am
To: Nick Law <[email address]>; Clare Allison <[email address]>
Subject: Catch up
Hi Both - just wondering if there was anything that we needed to catch up on this week,
particularly relating to ongoing SC discussions? Noting that Vicki has proposed a catch up next
week on that space. I'm ou of town Thursday/Friday but pretty free tomorrow - today a little
difficult.
Thanks
under the Official Information Act 1982
Nick
Nick Roberts
Chief Executive Officer
[email address]
9(2)(a)
Released
Asteron Centre, Level 10, 55 Featherston Street, Pipitea,
Wellington 6011
PO Box 618, Wellington 6140
tabnz.org | bobby.org.nz

Executive Assistant: Kaylea Nightingale | [email address]
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the addressee and is not necessarily the official view or
communication of TAB NZ. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the
information in it. If you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately. Thank you

This email has been filtered by SMX | Powered by IT Works | For more information
visit itworks.co.nz
This email has been filtered by SMX | Powered by IT Works | For more information
visit itworks.co.nz
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Document 9
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Document 11
22 April 2025
Rt. Hon. Winston Peters
Minister for Racing
Dear Minister,
Critical Issue in Select Committee Report on Racing Industry Amendment Bil
The  Governance  and  Administration  Committee  has  recommended  that  the  Racing  Industry
Amendment Bil  be passed.
However, the  Committee  has  also  recommended, on the back of the Departmental  Report, the
replacement of a foundational provision in the Racing Industry Act 2020. This recommendation was
made without consulting TAB New Zealand.
The Committee’s recommendation would require TAB NZ (via Entain) to accept all bets without limits
unless the person is determined to be a problem gambler or has acted in a socially undesirable manner
as prescribed in the statute (for example, through threatening or harassing behaviour).
We consider eﬀectively imposing a “no  imits” obligation on TAB NZ (and Entain) is a dangerous and
uncommercial approach, especial y at such short notice (we understand the Bil  wil  be passed in May
and in force shortly thereafter).1 This position has the potential to undermine the Bill’s purpose to
maintain and improve the long-term ﬁnancial sustainability of the racing industry while strengthening
funding to sport.
Consistent  with  our  submission  to  the  Committee,  TAB  NZ  supports  the  regulation-making power
under the Official Information Act 1982
contained in the original Bill relating to consumer protection – and the ability for the Government to
prescribe circumstances where bets should be accepted. Nonetheless, any variation to section 92 by
regulation or statute needs to be developed careful y to avoid unintended consequences, protect harm
minimisation outcomes, and strike the right balance against TAB NZ’s proﬁt-making requirements for
racing and sport.
Accordingly, we support clause 8 as it has been drafted in the original Bill.
Released
1 We acknowledge that the Committee proposed a regulating power to provide further circumstances where TAB NZ may
refuse  bets.  However,  we  understand  that  there  is  no  prospect  of  those  regulations  being  developed  prior to the
commencement of the Bil  and therefore the recommendation of the Committee would be in force from the commencement
of the Bil .

Background – Section 92
Section 92 of the Racing Industry Act, continued from the Racing Act 2003, currently allows TAB NZ
(and Entain via delegation) to “refuse to accept all or any part of a bet without giving any reason for
doing so.”
This provision has been foundational to TAB NZ’s harm minimisation programme, commercial viability,
and health and safety responses. It is deeply embedded in the operations of Entain NZ, as many of
those operations were inherited from TAB NZ.
The original Bill sensibly proposes a set of regulations which would allow for the right to refuse bets to
be qualiﬁed, cognisant of a monopoly market.
Committee recommends a gross departure from section 92
Among the Committee’s recommendations on the Bil  is to replace the Bil ’s revised section 92 to:
92  When bets may be refused
(1) TAB NZ or a TAB operator may refuse to accept all or any part of a bet from an individual if—
(a) the individual seeking to make the bet has been identiﬁed by TAB NZ or a TAB operator as
a problem gambler:
(b) the individual seeking to make the bet has previously been convicted of a relevant
oﬀence:
(c) the individual seeking to make the bet has engaged in, or is engaging in, behaviour
that—
(i) poses a threat to the safety of any member of TAB NZ staﬀ; or
(j) is harassing  intimidating, or causes serious emotional distress to any member of TAB
NZ staﬀ:
(d) any other grounds set out in regulations made under section 98A apply in respect of the
individual seeking to make the bet.
under the Official Information Act 1982
(2) If TAB NZ refuses a bet under this section, it must inform the individual seeking to make the
bet of the reason for refusal as soon as practicable after making the decision to refuse the
bet.
(3) In subsection (1)(b), relevant oﬀence has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the
Gambling Act 2003
Released
The impacts of the Governance and Administration Committee’s recommendation
As  noted,  the  Committee’s  recommendation  would  require  TAB  NZ  (via  Entain)  to  accept  al   bets
without limits unless the person is determined to be a problem gambler or has acted in a socially
undesirable  manner  as  prescribed  in the statute  (for  example,  through  threatening or harassing
behaviour).

TAB NZ submitted that a careful approach needed to be taken if a change to section 92 was made,2
whether that be by statute or regulation. Our primary position is that varying section 92 needs to be
done with extreme care, cognisant of several key issues, rather than the blanket approach put forward
by the Committee.
We consider that, at least, the fol owing matters need to be understood before section 92 is varied,
which we think can only be done by ful y developed and tested regulations:
• The commercial impacts on TAB NZ and, therefore, funding to racing and sport:
o The  Committee’s  recommendation  would  mean  that  Entain  could  not  manage  its
commercial  risk  in  any  coherent  manner,  because  it  would  not  have the  ability  to
refuse signiﬁcantly large bets on any betting option at any stage.
o This will have a material impact on TAB NZ’s revenue share payments and therefore
the  funding  outcomes  for  racing.  It  will also make  forecasting  returns  to  racing
extremely challenging, having a cooling eﬀect on racing s current rejuvenation path.
o In the sporting context, if TAB NZ (and Entain) were required to accept all bets on all
sporting events and sporting options there could be a reduction in revenue to National
Sporting Organisations as some products would simply be uncommercial to oﬀer and
NSO commission payments would fall.
o A key concern of submitters was the reduction in odds in a monopoly market. Entain
have publicly stated that the odds wil  reﬂect the odds published on its Australian
brands  –  a  huge  majority  of  New  Zealand  customers  therefore  enjoying  the  odds
borne out of Australia s competitive market. However, having to accept large amounts
of uncommercial business wil  mean that proposition cannot be met  because it would
cut against TAB NZ’s ability to deliver funding outcomes for racing and sport.
• The impacts on the health and safety of frontline staﬀ
o The ability to refuse bets is a key component of de-escalation for frontline staﬀ. We do
under the Official Information Act 1982
not consider it reasonable, fair or practical for frontline staﬀ to be required to make a
cal   on  whether  a  person’s  behaviour  has  reached  the  statutory  threshold  for
exclusion.
• The impacts on TAB NZ (and Entain)’s harm minimisation programme
o TAB NZ developed its harm minimisation programme over many years by utilising the
ability to refuse part or all of a bet, i.e. customers are excluded from placing bets when
Released a problem gambler is identiﬁed.
o Placing  limits or  excluding  customers  because  of  concerns with  gambling harm  is
subjective and it would be onerous to leave decisions open to legal challenge which
2 See paragraphs 68 to 72 of TAB NZ Submission on Racing Industry Amendment Bil .

may deliver perverse outcomes (contrary to the intended harm minimisation beneﬁts
of a single operator market).
o The impacts and changes to  the  harm  minimisation  programme need to be
understood before section 92 is varied.
• Whether the premise of refusing a bet for commercial reasons is justiﬁed in any event
o Customers may bet to win (i.e. proﬁt) $2,000 from their ﬁrst bet on any New Zealand
race  through  the  TAB  NZ-established  “Punters  Promise”,  except  in  circumstances
where  the  customer has  limits  or  exclusions  placed  on  their  account  because  of
gambling harm or other unsociable or dishonset behaviour.
o By way of comparison, codiﬁed “minimum bet laws” exist in Australia for racing and,
even though racing is funded by turnover fees, the minimum bet laws operate with
strict limits (for example, a bet to proﬁt $2,000 for a metropolitan race is the highest
minimum bet law imposed on operators and only available on the day of the race). It
is acknowledged  in  all  jurisdictions  that  operators  must  be  able  to  manage  their
commercial risk.
o Other skill-based  gambling  activities  are  not  required  to  accept  all  business  (for
example, casinos are known to legally exclude “card counters” from blackjack tables).
• Whether other determinations, ﬁndings or rulings should warrant refusal of bets
o The  Committee’s  recommendation  only  extends  to  speciﬁc  types  of  oﬀences,  and
there may be further ﬁndings outside of a criminal court context which we consider
justify someone being refused the right to participate in betting activity. For example,
there may be money laundering or fraud behaviour detected, or a match-ﬁxing ﬁnding
by  a  sporting  body,  which does not meet  or cannot be proven to the criminality
threshold.
• The impact on other laws and which has supremacy
o As a matter of statutory interpretation, we have not been able to determine at short
under the Official Information Act 1982
notice  how  the  Committee’s recommended  provision  would  interact with legal
obligations under other Acts – especially as the Bill would post-date those Acts; for
example, the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009.
• Whether this liberal law would establish New Zealand as a haven for il egal activity
o We are concerned that an inability to refuse bets (except for a set of prescribed and
limited circumstances) may mean that the New Zealand market is seen as a desirable
Released jurisdiction to chase match-ﬁxing proﬁts or launder money. This requires deeper
consideration, and any amendment to section 92 wil  need to account for these risks.
9(2)(b)(ii)

9(2)(b)(ii)
Clause 8 of the original Bil should be restored
In light of the above, we consider that clause 8 of the original Bill is necessary – otherwise the very
goals of the Bill will not eventuate.
The original Bill provides for a regulation-making power to ensure that customers are given a fair
opportunity to place bets in the monopoly market – a provision TAB NZ supports, rather than the
Committee’s blanket approach that will establish a pandora’s box of unintended consequences. These
are matters which need to be deeply understood before a change to the current section 92 is made.
TAB NZ appreciates your attention to this critical issue.
Yours sincerely,
under the Official Information Act 1982
Nick Roberts
Chief Executive Oﬃcer
TAB New Zealand
Released

under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Asteron Centre, Level 10, 55 Featherston Street, Pipitea, Wellington
6011
PO Box 618, Wellington 6140
tabnz.org | bobby.org.nz
Executive Assistant: Kaylea Nightingale | [email address]
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the addressee and is not necessarily the official view or
communication of TAB NZ. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the
information in it. If you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately. Thank you
This email has been filtered by SMX | Powered by IT Works | For more information visit itworks.co.nz
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Document 13
Amendment Paper - Racing Industry Amendment Bill
Summary
•
The Bil  as reported back recommends changes to Clause 8 to remove TAB NZ's outright ability to refuse a
bet and instead limit its ability to refuse a bet to specific situations related to safety. This was to address
concerns that with a monopoly, punters would have no other alternative if their bets were refused by
TAB NZ.
•
The Amendment Paper restores Clause 8 to how it was when the Bil  was introduced; and moves the
Committee's recommendations of the situations in which TAB NZ could refuse a bet from this clause into
the regulation-making powers under Clause 12.
•
This change is to allow more time and flexibility for policy work to be done to ensure there are no
unintended impacts of these restrictions before they are implemented, in light of concerns recently
raised by TAB NZ to the Minister. TAB NZ is comfortable with this approach.
Background
•
The Bill has two consumer protection provisions that work together: one [Clause 8] is the primary
legislation, and the other [Clause 12] is a new regulation-making power.
•
As introduced, Clause 8 proposed to amend section 92 of the Act so that TAB NZ's ability to refuse al  or
part of a bet would be subject to regulations relating to consumer protections that could be made in the
future (this regulation-making power is in the new section 98A created in Clause 12).
•
The Select Committee recommended changes to Clause 8 to remove TAB NZ's ability to refuse a bet and
instead limit its ability to refuse a bet to specific situations related to safety. This recommendation
resulted from submissions that were concerned that under a monopoly, punters would have no other
legal alternative if their bets were refused by TAB.
•
The Committee also recommended adding in several specific new regulation-making powers into Clause
12 (e.g., the ability to regulate for minimum bet limits).
•
Following the Committee's report, TAB NZ supplied additional information to the Minister for Racing
raising concerns about unintended consequences from the Committee's recommendation regarding
section 92. TAB NZ highlighted various matters that need to be considered in changing section 92,
including:
o
The ability to refuse significantly large bets is crucial to managing TAB NZ’s commercial risks.
o
If TAB NZ were required to accept al  bets, there could be a reduction in the revenue to National Sporting
Organisations as some sports betting products would be uncommercial to offer.
o
The impact on TAB NZ's other legal obligations e.g., the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering
Financing of Terrorism Act 2009.
under the Official Information Act 1982
o
The inability to refuse bets could establish NZ as a prime market for match-fixing or money laundering.
o
[This bullet point is commercially sensitive] Entain may have the right to trigger a provision in the
Partnership Agreement which could see the Partnership terminated.
•
TAB NZ’s submission to the Committee on the Bil  did not include these detailed concerns and the
Committee therefore was unable to consider them when making its recommendations.
•
The Minister understands submitters’ concerns and the rationale behind the Committee's
Released
recommendation and is committed to ensuring adequate consumer protections. However, he also
considers more work on these matters is needed to prevent unintended consequences for TAB NZ and
avoid any risks to the Bill’s aim to protect the financial sustainability of the racing industry.
•
The Amendment Paper balances these considerations, considering the Government’s intent to have this
Bill passed as soon as possible. Including these matters in regulations, rather than the primary Act will
help ensure that impacts of these restrictions can be canvassed thoroughly before they are implemented.
Page 1 of 1

Summary of intended Departmental recommendations to the Governance & Administration Committee on the Racing Industry Amendment Bill
IN-CONFIDENCE NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
The following is an overview of the issues which the Department considers need the Minister’s attention. Minor drafting issues will be addressed in the Departmental report. We have based our
proposed advice (which is subject to further legal review and discussions with PCO) on the assumptions the Bill should progress as quickly as possible and its scope should be narrow. There are risks
that expanding the scope of the Bill could delay its progress as this could require further Cabinet decisions and/or select committee consultation on additions to the Bill.
Issue
What we intend to note and recommend in the report
Minister’s view
New products requested by TAB – virtual racing
• The prospect of the TAB providing these new products was raised but not progressed in the post-
Agree / Disagree
and sports, in-race, & novelty betting
Messara 2020 reforms in which the Government reaffirmed that TAB should focus solely on racing
• TAB and Entain want the Bill extended to cover
and sports wagering, and not wider gambling products.
Comment:
virtual, in-race, and novelty betting.
• We understand the Minister is considering whether to include new products in the current Bill.
• These product types are not captured in the
• Virtual betting is currently being considered within the work to regulate online casino gambling led
current legislation. Including them would require
by the Minister of Internal Affairs. Giving TAB NZ a monopoly over these products would likely
expanding what TAB can take bets on.
require the Minister for Racing, and the Minister of Internal Affairs, to go back to Cabinet to seek
cts • Virtual products, with computer-generated
approval to include this in the Bill.
outcomes, are considered casino games (games
Department advice:
odu
of chance) rather than traditional race wagering
• We will seek direction from the Minister on new products in a briefing on 5 March 2025.
pr
(based on real world outcomes). The Act
Currently, these products are outside the policy intent of this Bill.
currently mandates actual horses, greyhounds,
ther
or human participants for racing and sports.
nd o
a Betting exchanges & other products
• In a November 2024 briefing, the Minister indicated support to include betting exchanges in the
Agree / Disagree
ew
N • Some submitters argued there should be a ‘carve
online monopoly, meaning TAB can offer these products in the future, but until such time,
out’ for betting exchanges because, while the Act
customers will not be able to use exchange betting legally.
Comment:
allows for this, TAB NZ do not offer it.
Department advice:
• Others raised concerns about products offered
• We propose no change for betting exchanges, assuming the Minister’s position from November
overseas that the TAB can, but do not offer (e.g.
hasn’t changed, and in line with our assumptions about scope and speed of the Bill. We intend to
online poker) and that TAB may not be
take the same approach with other products not offered by TAB.
incentivised to provide competitive product
• If the Committee were interested in pursuing this, one option would be to allow a carve out for
offerings.
betting exchanges until such time as TAB decides to offer it.
under the Official Information Act 1982
• A number of National Sporting Organisations
• Various sports issues, including sports receiving greater wagering funding, were raised during
Agree / Disagree
(NSOs) submitted that sports is not receiving its
post-Messara report reforms which resulted in the current Act.
fair share of TAB profits
• The Act is focused on the racing industry and does not provide for/anticipate that all TAB NZ
Comment:
ts
revenue gained from sports betting will be returned to sports.
• Sports also want more representation on the TAB Department advice:
Spor
board.
• We propose no change as these suggestions are outside the narrow policy intent of this Bill.
• The Department will note to the Committee that the Act does have a backup regulation making
Document 14
power to prescribe a formula for minimum payments to sports. These could be used to address
Released
some NSOs concerns without impacting on the Bill.

Issue
What we intend to note and recommend in the report
Minister’s view
• Many submitters are concerned that TAB NZ
• The intent of this regulation making power is to ensure that TAB can't exclude customers outright
Agree / Disagree
customers are currently being restricted or
unless there are genuine reasons (e.g. a gambling problem) and not just because they are too
banned for being too successful  and that with a
successful.
Comment:
monopoly TAB will be empowered to do so even
• We consider that a number of the specific consumer protection suggestions made by submitters
more without sufficient regulation.
are valid and the Act should provide for them at a later date if needed.
• Many submitters also mentioned  a ‘minimum
Department advice:
bet’ guarantee should be required (like occurs in
• We propose adding a requirement to the body of the Act that TAB can't exclude customers
ection
Australian states) .
outright unless there are conditions like problem gambling, to better reflect the intent of this
rot
• Other customer protection concerns often raised
provision.
have been ensuring TAB’s betting odds; pricing &
• We propose reviewing this regulation making power with PCO to ensure it can cover some of the
er p
‘cut’ is fair and competitive.
specific consumer protection suggestions if needed, as well as investigating expanding the
sum
• There have also been concerns from submitters
Department’s regulatory powers to be able to directly request information from TAB to support
on
and interest from the Committee about
the Minister’s new power to require reporting from the TAB. This would address some concerns
C
transparency requirements and ensuring there is
about scrutiny over TAB’s consumer protection and harm minimisation obligations.
sufficient oversight of TAB operations.
• One other option is making regulations soon after the Bill to secure the TAB’s current  ‘Punters
Promise’, which is a  voluntary minimum bet guarantee, to prevent TAB from dropping this from
their practices after getting a monopoly.
• Many submissions welcomed stronger harm
• We consider that a number of the specific suggestions made by submitters are valid and the Act
Agree / Disagree
minimisation regulation making powers. Some
should provide for them at a later date if needed.
isation
submitters want harm minimisation.
Department advice:
Comment:
requirements in the Act, not regulations.
• We propose reviewing the regulation making power and working with PCO to ensure it is wide
inim
• Some submitters also recommended specific
enough to cover some of the specific measures for harm minimisation if needed.
m
measures for harm minimisation like restricting
arm
the types of accepted forms of payment e.g.,
H
credit cards.
• No submissions commented on Point of
• The Bill currently repeals the POCC 24 months after Royal Assent. However, there may become a
Agree / Disagree
under the Official Information Act 1982
Consumption Charge (POCC) repeal date but the
point where it is no longer financially viable to keep the POCC going if DIA’s costs of collecting
Department’s thinking has evolved since the Bill
this outweighs the outstanding money to be collected.
Comment:
was drafted.
Department advice:
We recommend changing this clause to allow for a provision where the POCC can be repealed
repeal date
sooner than 2 years, by Order In Council.
C
• We may also investigate adding a power for DIA to request information from POCC payees to help
C
with this determination (e.g., outstanding POCC payable).
PO
Released  IN-CONFIDENCE NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY