NZ Casinos with Trustly: How to Verify Access
Available in USTrustly availability can depend on the casino site and account country, so cashier evidence matters more than a general payment claim.
Table of Contents
- Checking Whether Trustly Is Actually Available
- Trustly Access at Online Casinos
- What a Trustly Casino Claim Needs to Show
- Trustly Casino Searches and the Limits of the Evidence
- Trustly Deposits: What Can and Cannot Be Confirmed
- Casinos Accepting Trustly: Verification Before Use
- Payment Terms: Trustly Searches Versus Verified Alternatives
- Bonus Eligibility Is a Separate Check
- Trustly Payment Claims Without Verified Operator Names
- A “Top” Trustly Deposit Casino Requires Verifiable Terms
Checking Whether Trustly Is Actually Available
A casino’s general mention of Trustly does not, by itself, establish that the method is available to a Kiwi user. Acceptance needs to be checked against the particular casino website, the account’s country settings and the payment options shown for that account. A method may be described in general information while not appearing in the relevant account’s cashier. The distinction is practical: a payment logo or broad claim is not the same evidence as an available option in the account being assessed.
The strongest first check is the cashier after signing in, before making any payment. The relevant evidence is a clearly labelled Trustly option presented among the available methods for that account. If it is absent, a general page elsewhere on the site cannot establish that it is available there. If it appears, that confirms only what the cashier displays at that time; it does not establish universal availability across the operator’s other websites, account types or locations.
Country selection matters because payment access can be configured by market. A casino page may describe services across multiple countries, while a specific account is assigned a particular country. The account settings and the cashier should therefore be read together. A payment method presented after selecting one country cannot automatically be treated as available under another country’s settings. This is a basic scope issue, not a technicality: the acceptance claim must match the account for which it is being made.
Check the account, not just the brand
Casino brands can operate more than one website or offer different account experiences across a website and an app. A Trustly reference on one version does not prove the option is present on another. The site address, account country and the interface being checked should be identifiable in any evidence used to support an acceptance claim.
The same caution applies to old screenshots and copied payment lists. They may reflect a former cashier layout, an earlier set of payment options or a different country setting. Evidence is useful only when its context is clear. An image with no identifiable site, account context or date is difficult to evaluate, even if the Trustly name is visible.
Where the cashier is unclear, the operator’s own written response can help resolve the point. The question should be specific: whether Trustly is currently available for an account registered in New Zealand on the particular website under review. A generic reply that the casino “supports Trustly” leaves the central issue unsettled. A clear response tied to the country and site is more useful, especially when it can be compared with what the account cashier displays.
Separate availability from marketing language
Terms such as “supported,” “available” or “accepted” can refer to different things. They might describe an operator’s payment capabilities generally, a method displayed in some markets, or an option enabled for a specific account. Without the account and country context, the wording does not settle which meaning applies.
A payment logo has similar limits. It can indicate that Trustly is associated with the site’s payment information, but it does not show that the method is selectable in a particular cashier. A third-party list has the same limitation unless it explains how and when the information was checked and specifies the relevant market. Repetition across several pages does not make an uncontextualised claim more precise.
An effective verification record should therefore capture the exact casino website, the relevant country setting, the account interface checked and the result shown by the cashier. If written confirmation is used, it should identify the same site and country. This creates a traceable basis for saying that Trustly appeared as an available option in that setting, rather than relying on a broad description detached from the account.
The wording of any conclusion should match the evidence. If Trustly is visible in the cashier for the New Zealand account being assessed, the evidence supports a narrow statement about that account and that point in time. It does not support a claim that every casino under the same brand accepts Trustly, or that the option is available to every customer. If only a general payment page or logo is available, the conclusion should remain equally limited.
- Check the cashier after signing in
- Verify account country settings
- Confirm available options in the account
- Rely on general site mentions
- Trust payment logos alone
- Use old screenshots as evidence
This standard avoids turning a plausible payment-method reference into an operator-wide promise. For a claim about the best casino accepting Trustly, the acceptance question must be settled before any comparison can carry weight. A ranking cannot repair a mismatch between a general site description and the options actually presented to the account. The relevant evidence is concrete and bounded: the right website, the right country setting and a cashier display or specific operator confirmation that corresponds to both.
Trustly Access at Online Casinos
Trustly appearing alongside online casinos does not establish that it can be used from a New Zealand account. The phrase can describe a general association between the payment method and casino websites; it does not, by itself, identify an operator available to a Kiwi user or confirm that Trustly is offered for that account.
That distinction matters when assessing claims about the best online casinos with Trustly. “Best” implies that eligible options have been identified and compared. Without confirmed examples that work for New Zealand accounts, there is no sound basis for ranking them. A casino described elsewhere as supporting Trustly may not have the same payment options for every country or account. Treating a general description as a local recommendation would turn an unresolved availability question into a claim of suitability.
The same issue applies to lists of Trustly casinos online. A list can be useful only if its entries are relevant to the intended user. Names gathered from broad descriptions do not establish that a New Zealand customer can open an account with the operator and use Trustly there. Nor does the presence of the payment method in a general casino description settle whether it applies to a particular market. The label may be accurate in one context and still fail to answer the New Zealand question.
General association is not local access
There are two different propositions concealed in the phrase “online casino with Trustly”. One is that a casino has been associated with Trustly in some context. The other is that Trustly is available to a New Zealand account at that casino. The first proposition does not prove the second.
That gap is not a technicality. Payment options can be presented at the level of a casino brand, a website, a country or an individual account. Unless the claim identifies the relevant context, it leaves the central point unresolved. A broad statement such as “Trustly is supported” may sound decisive while saying too little about who can use it.
A New Zealand-focused assessment therefore cannot rely on the method’s general visibility or on a casino’s description aimed at a different audience. It needs to establish that the claim concerns New Zealand access, not merely Trustly and online casinos in the same sentence. Until that distinction is settled, “best Trustly casino online” is a ranking-shaped phrase without a confirmed set of suitable options behind it.
This does not mean that every broad reference is false. It means that broad references do not answer a narrower question. A claim can be accurate in its original setting and still be inadequate for a Kiwi user deciding whether a particular casino offers Trustly to them. The difference is between an association and a usable option; the wording should not make those two amounts look equal.
A general association between Trustly and a casino does not prove the method is available to a specific New Zealand account.
What a New Zealand-focused answer can say
A careful answer can describe the uncertainty without converting it into a categorical denial. It would be inaccurate to say that Trustly is unavailable everywhere merely because a New Zealand account has not been established as supported. It would be equally inaccurate to call an operator a New Zealand Trustly casino without a basis for that claim. The defensible position is narrower: general references do not confirm local access, and an unconfirmed option cannot be presented as a verified choice.
That boundary also limits what “top” can mean. A top online casino using Trustly would need to be an actual option for the intended account, not just a website associated with the payment method in general. If local suitability is unresolved, comparisons based on reputation, presentation or other features cannot repair the missing premise. A ranking cannot make an unconfirmed payment route available.
The distinction is especially relevant when a phrase is short enough to hide its assumptions. “Trustly casino online” may refer to a casino that lists the method, a casino that has accepted it for some users, or a casino that offers it to a New Zealand account. Those are not interchangeable descriptions. The final one is the point that matters for someone in New Zealand; the first two alone cannot support it.
Accordingly, broad descriptions of Trustly and online casinos should be read as general context, not as confirmation of access from New Zealand. No operator can be responsibly labelled a best Trustly option for a Kiwi user unless the local availability claim is established. Until then, the commercial language may sound complete, but the essential qualifier—available to whom—has not been answered.
What a Trustly Casino Claim Needs to Show
Calling a site a casino with Trustly is a specific claim, not a general description of its payment options. It says more than that Trustly exists, or that a casino lists several electronic payment methods. It implies a usable connection between a particular operator, Trustly and the account being described. Without evidence of that connection, the phrase is only a label.
The distinction matters for New Zealand accounts. A payment method may be mentioned in material aimed at another country, or appear in a general list of options, without being available to a Kiwi user on the relevant casino site. A broad statement that a casino supports Trustly therefore cannot establish that the method works for every account, location or version of the service. The claim needs a defined scope: which casino, which site or account region, and what kind of Trustly use is being asserted.
“Casino sites with Trustly” can also mean different things. It might refer to a site that displays Trustly somewhere in its payment information, one that lets a customer select it in a cashier, or one where the payment can actually be completed. Those are not interchangeable descriptions. A logo or a general payment-method page may indicate an association, but it does not by itself establish that the option is available in the relevant account.
The same care applies to the word “accepts”. It can describe a method offered in principle, but the practical meaning depends on the transaction being claimed. A statement about Trustly for one payment direction does not automatically establish support in the other direction. That is why “Trustly withdrawal casino” is a narrower claim than “casino with Trustly”: it specifically implies that Trustly can be used to receive a payout, not merely that it appears among possible payment methods.
Attention A statement about Trustly support for one payment direction does not automatically establish support for the other (deposits vs. withdrawals).
A credible description should not collapse these differences. If a page says Trustly is available for casino payments, its wording should make clear whether that means deposits, withdrawals, or both. If it does not specify, the reader cannot tell what service the claim covers. Nor should a description turn a general mention of Trustly into a promise that the method is usable for a New Zealand account.
The phrase “best NZ casinos with Trustly 2026” adds another layer. “Best” implies that eligible casinos have been identified and compared against some stated standard. “NZ” narrows the claim to relevance for New Zealand, while the year makes it time-specific. A ranking cannot be supported merely by describing Trustly as a payment brand or by repeating that some casinos accept electronic payments. It depends first on identifying operators that meet the narrower Trustly claim, then explaining the basis for comparing them. Without those elements, the wording suggests a level of certainty the label itself cannot provide.
There is a practical difference between an operator being described as a Trustly casino and an operator being established as one. The first is a piece of wording; the second requires an identifiable basis for the claim. A named casino should not be presented as a confirmed Trustly option unless its connection to the payment method is established for the relevant market and service. No named operator can be treated as confirmed on the strength of the phrase alone.
This is not a demand for elaborate technical language. It is a question of what a claim actually covers. “Trustly supported” may sound decisive, but it leaves important boundaries unstated if the location, account context and transaction type are unclear. A careful description avoids extending a limited statement into a broader one. Support for one site version, for instance, would not prove support across every version or account category.
The same standard applies to recommendations and comparisons. An online casino should not be placed in a Trustly category simply because its payment page is broad, its brand appears beside other providers, or a third-party description uses the label. The claim needs to identify the operator and the service being attributed to it. Where either is unclear, the classification remains uncertain; where neither is established, a list of casinos with Trustly would give uncertainty the appearance of a recommendation.
For New Zealand, the useful meaning of “casino with Trustly” is therefore narrow: an identifiable casino, with Trustly shown as a usable option for the relevant NZ account, and a clear statement of which transaction the option covers. Anything less may describe an association, a general payment menu or an overseas-facing service, but it does not establish the full claim.
Trustly Casino Searches and the Limits of the Evidence
“Trustly casinos” is a convenient label for a combination of ideas: a payment brand, online gambling and, in a New Zealand context, access for Kiwi users. The label does not establish that those ideas connect in practice. A casino may be described as accepting a payment method in one market, while availability for a New Zealand account remains unconfirmed. The phrase alone cannot settle that distinction.
New Zealand Market Framework
The Online Casino Gambling Act 2026 came into force on 1 May 2026, creating a transitional period for existing operators. The full licensed regime is not expected to be operational until 2027.
The same applies to “best” in a request for a Trustly casino. A ranking needs a defined basis. Possible criteria include whether the method is available to the relevant account, what transaction terms apply and whether the operator provides clear conditions. Without comparable, Trustly-specific information, a “best” label is a verdict without a calculation behind it. Familiarity, promotional language or repetition of the same claim does not supply the missing comparison.
A broad category can also conceal different meanings. “Casino with Trustly” might refer to a payment option displayed somewhere on an operator’s site, a method available only to certain customers, or a service confirmed for a New Zealand account. Those are not interchangeable claims. Nor does a general mention of Trustly establish that a particular operator supports it. The distinction matters because a payment method’s existence and its availability within a particular casino account are separate propositions.
Country context changes the weight of a claim. A page addressing another market cannot automatically establish what a Kiwi user will see. Payment arrangements can be presented by country, account or platform, and a general description may omit those boundaries. Reading a market-specific label as proof of local availability would turn a broad association into a definite claim without the connecting detail.
The name of a payment service also tells little about the operator relationship. A brand may be discussed alongside casinos without demonstrating that any named casino accepts it. A list assembled from general descriptions would therefore risk presenting association as confirmation. That is a poor basis for choosing a payment route, even if the wording sounds definite.
New Zealand’s online-casino framework adds a separate distinction. The Online Casino Gambling Act 2026 came into force on 1 May 2026 and created a transitional period for operators already serving people in the country before that date. The full licensed regime is not expected to be operational until 2027. These legal facts describe the market framework; they do not establish that a casino offers Trustly or that the payment method is available to a particular account. Legal status and cashier functionality are different questions.
This leaves a narrow but useful reading of the category: it signals interest in casinos and Trustly together, not proof of a working arrangement. A claim becomes meaningful only when it identifies the operator, the relevant market and the scope of the payment option. Until those elements are connected, the phrase remains broad enough to cover materially different situations.
That limitation is not a technicality. Payment decisions concern the route by which funds move, while a category label describes only an association. Treating the label as a confirmed offer collapses those two levels of information. A careful comparison keeps them separate and avoids converting a broad description into an operator recommendation.
Trustly Deposits: What Can and Cannot Be Confirmed
A deposit is not a single event. It involves selecting a payment method, authorising a transaction and having the casino account credited. Those stages can have different conditions, so a general description of casino payments does not establish how a Trustly deposit works at a particular casino.
For Trustly, the relevant terms are the ones attached to the specific cashier and account: whether the method is offered for deposits, what authorisation requires, and how the operator describes crediting and any charges. A Trustly name on a payment-information page, by itself, does not specify the complete transaction. Nor does a procedure described for another wallet establish Trustly’s processing time, fees or account requirements.
Neteller Deposit Process
Create an account, provide required details, and complete verification.
Select Neteller in the casino cashier and choose the deposit amount.
Approve the payment through the Neteller interface.
Neteller illustrates why the distinction matters. Its casino deposit process involves creating an account, providing the required details and completing verification. At the casino, the player selects Neteller in the cashier, chooses an amount and approves the payment through Neteller. That is a Neteller procedure, not a template that can be transferred to Trustly by substituting one payment brand for another. Payment methods have their own account and authorisation arrangements; the cashier’s wording governs the transaction being offered.
The same separation applies to timing and cost. A statement about how quickly a Neteller deposit is credited, or what a Neteller transaction may cost, says nothing about the corresponding Trustly terms. A Trustly deposit should not be described as instant, free or subject to any particular account setup unless those conditions are stated for the Trustly route itself. A method’s general reputation is not a substitute for the operator’s displayed terms.
For a Kiwi user assessing a Trustly deposit, the useful distinction is between a method being mentioned and a transaction being sufficiently specified. The latter requires clear information about the payment route and its conditions before the deposit is authorised. Where the cashier does not explain a material condition, the amount credited or the cost cannot be calculated from details belonging to Neteller or another method.
This is a narrow point, but it affects the value of the payment choice. The amount leaving a payment account and the amount credited to a casino balance should not be assumed to match merely because a deposit is described as supported. The applicable route and its terms determine what can be concluded. Neteller’s steps and reported terms remain Neteller-specific; they do not confirm how Trustly deposits are initiated, processed or priced.
Casinos Accepting Trustly: Verification Before Use
A payment method shown on a general casino page is not, by itself, confirmation that it is available to every account. Payment options can be presented differently by country, account status or the version of the site being used. For a Kiwi user, the relevant question is whether Trustly appears as an available method for that specific New Zealand account—not whether the casino mentions Trustly somewhere on its website.
The cashier is the practical point of confirmation. After signing in, check the payment methods displayed for the account and make sure the site is set to the correct country. A method visible only on a generic payments page, in promotional material or in another country’s version of the site does not establish access for the account in question. Nor does an old review settle what the cashier currently offers.
The wording also matters. A payment page may describe services available through a provider without identifying which methods the casino actually supports. Trustly should be named explicitly as an available option, rather than inferred from a broad reference to bank payments or online banking. If the cashier’s display is unclear, a direct written response from the operator can clarify whether Trustly is enabled for that account. The question should specify the country and account context; a general reply about the casino’s payment options leaves the central point unresolved.
Acceptance should not be inferred from a method appearing in a list of possible services, either. A list may describe options that vary by market, while the account’s own cashier shows what is currently selectable. If Trustly is absent there, treating a third-party description as proof of access is a weak basis for deciding that the account can use it.
Verify Trustly Availability
- Sign in to the casino account
- Set the account to New Zealand
- Check the cashier for the Trustly option
- Explicitly confirm the method name (not just ‘online banking’)
It is also useful to distinguish confirmation of availability from other conditions. Seeing Trustly in the cashier addresses whether the method is presented for that account; it does not, on its own, settle every rule attached to using it. Those terms should be read separately rather than folded into the acceptance claim.
The standard is simple: the account-specific cashier or a clear operator confirmation must identify Trustly for the relevant New Zealand account. Anything broader establishes, at most, that the method is discussed—not that it is available in that particular case.
Payment Terms: Trustly Searches Versus Verified Alternatives
A payment method’s name is not a fee schedule. Trustly, Skrill and Neteller are separate services, so a figure attached to one cannot be carried across to another. For a Trustly casino payment, the relevant terms would be the ones displayed for Trustly itself, including any charge and the stated processing conditions. Skrill and Neteller provide a comparison of other payment options, not a substitute Trustly tariff.
A specialist review describes Skrill transactions as free and puts Neteller’s fees at around 1–2%. The same review reports instant deposits and payouts within one day for both Skrill and Neteller. Those are claims about those two services as described in that review; they are not universal guarantees, and they do not establish the cost or speed of Trustly payments.
The fee comparison also needs to be read as a statement about transactions, not as a complete account of every cost involved in moving money. An operator’s terms and a payment provider’s own charges are separate parts of the calculation. A casino payment shown without a fee at one stage does not, by itself, settle what the provider may charge elsewhere. The specialist review’s wording is therefore useful only within its stated scope: Skrill and Neteller.
Timing has a similar boundary. A reported instant deposit describes the deposit side, while a payout within one day describes a withdrawal claim. Neither gives a Trustly processing time. Nor does a general payment-method comparison establish that a particular casino makes each service available to every account. A cashiers’ list and the terms attached to the selected method are more relevant than importing another provider’s figures.
For a Trustly payment at an online casino, the financial comparison should therefore be made using Trustly-specific charges and processing terms shown by the operator and the payment service. Skrill’s reported zero transaction charge and Neteller’s reported fee range may help distinguish those alternatives, but they do not calculate a Trustly payment. Treating them as interchangeable would turn a comparison into a price assumption.
Bonus Eligibility Is a Separate Check
A payment method being accepted by a casino does not, by itself, make a deposit eligible for a welcome offer. Promotion terms can treat payment methods differently, so the cashier and the offer rules answer separate questions.
A specialist casino review reported that Neteller deposits often do not qualify for welcome offers. That is a method-specific observation, not a general rule for every casino or promotion. It also does not establish how a casino treats Trustly deposits. Trustly eligibility needs to be stated in the relevant offer terms; acceptance of Trustly as a payment option is not enough to infer it.
Bonus Eligibility
Payment method acceptance does not guarantee welcome offer eligibility; check the promotion’s specific payment-method clause.
The distinction affects the value calculation. A welcome offer has a cash value only if its conditions are met, including any payment-method exclusions. If an excluded method is used, the deposit may still be processed while the bonus is not credited. Treating those outcomes as one decision can leave the expected bonus out of the final account balance.
For a Kiwi user comparing a casino bonus with a Trustly payment option, the decisive wording is the promotion’s payment-method clause, not the cashier’s list alone. Terms should identify whether the offer applies to the deposit method in question and whether any separate conditions alter eligibility. Where the wording is unclear, the bonus should not be included in the expected value of the deposit.
Trustly Payment Claims Without Verified Operator Names
A statement that casinos offer Trustly payments is not an operator recommendation. Without a named casino, the claim cannot be tied to a particular cashier, account type or set of payment terms. It describes a category, not a usable option.
That distinction matters when comparing payment methods. A casino’s general payment page may describe services available in some markets without establishing that Trustly is available to a Kiwi user. A logo or broad reference to online banking is not a substitute for an operator-specific statement. The name must be attached to the payment claim, and the claim must apply to the relevant account.
An unnamed list also leaves basic questions unanswered: which operator is being discussed, whether the payment method appears in its cashier, and whether the information concerns deposits, withdrawals or both. Those details cannot be inferred from the phrase “Trustly casino”. Treating the phrase as proof of a particular option would turn a general label into a recommendation without a supporting operator identity.
For a meaningful comparison, each entry needs to identify the casino and state precisely what Trustly function is claimed. If that information is absent, there is no operator-level basis for comparing payment access or terms. A broad claim may indicate what a reader hopes to find, but it cannot establish that any named casino provides it.
The practical distinction is simple: payment-method language can describe an idea, while a usable claim identifies an operator and the service attached to it. Until those are connected, the label should not be treated as a confirmed choice.
A “Top” Trustly Deposit Casino Requires Verifiable Terms
For New Zealand players looking at casinos in connection with Trustly, this list offers a starting point for checking the operators and the details available about them. Confirm Trustly availability directly with each operator before relying on it as a payment option.
License: Malta Gaming Authority, licence no. MGA/B2C/394/2017 N1 Casino lists a Malta Gaming Authority licence, number MGA/B2C/394/2017.
License: Curaçao Gaming Authority, licence no. OGL/2024/165/0185 BitStarz lists a Curaçao Gaming Authority licence, number OGL/2024/165/0185.
License: Tobique Gaming Commission, licence no. 0000064 Neospin lists a Tobique Gaming Commission licence, number 0000064.
Payout speed: 1-3 business days Lamabet’s listed payout speed is 1–3 business days.
License: Tobique Gaming Commission, licence no. 0000091 7Bit Casino lists a Tobique Gaming Commission licence, number 0000091.
License: Tobique Gaming Commission, licence no. 0000002 Ricky Casino lists a Tobique Gaming Commission licence, number 0000002.
License: 07017519840 · Payout speed: 1-3 business days Zotabet lists the licence reference 07017519840 and a payout speed of 1–3 business days.
License: Malta Gaming Authority, licence no. MGA/B2C/370/2017 Play Grand lists a Malta Gaming Authority licence, number MGA/B2C/370/2017.
Payout speed: 1-3 business days Wintino’s listed payout speed is 1–3 business days.
Calling a casino “top” for Trustly deposits requires more than a payment-method label. A ranking needs comparable evidence: confirmation that Trustly is available to NZ account holders, the conditions for depositing, any charges, and the operator’s rules for handling the transaction. Without those details, there is no sound basis for placing one casino above another.
A payment option shown on a general website may not establish that it is available in the New Zealand cashier. Nor does an unqualified claim establish what happens after a deposit is submitted. The relevant terms must relate to the operator, the account region and the actual Trustly transaction. Otherwise, a comparison risks ranking descriptions rather than usable payment arrangements.
The same standard applies to claims about cost and speed. A ranking cannot fairly distinguish one option from another unless the applicable Trustly terms are documented and comparable. Neteller or Skrill conditions do not fill that gap: their fees, processing descriptions and deposit rules belong to those methods, not Trustly.
For a Kiwi user, the label “top Trustly deposit casino” therefore remains unsubstantiated unless named operators and their relevant terms can be checked. A polished ranking format does not supply the missing comparison. It may create an impression of measured differences where none have been demonstrated.
A defensible assessment would require consistent, account-specific information for each candidate, rather than a broad claim that Trustly is supported. Until that information is established, no operator can responsibly be presented as the leading choice for Trustly deposits. The distinction is practical: a ranking is a conclusion drawn from comparable terms, not a substitute for them.
How do I use Neteller at an online casino?
Create and verify a Neteller account, then select Neteller in the casino cashier, choose a deposit amount and approve the payment in Neteller. Deposits are typically credited instantly.
Are there any fees for deposits from NZ?
Neteller deposits incur a 2.5% fee, and a casino may also charge its own fees. Adding funds to Neteller can carry additional fees depending on the payment type.
How fast is an Apple Pay payout?
After the operator approves it, a card credit commonly takes around two to four New Zealand banking days, and may take longer.
Why was my Apple Pay casino deposit declined?
A gambling block on the debit or credit card linked to Apple Pay can cause the deposit to be declined.
Can NZ players withdraw to Apple Pay?
Only if the casino offers Apple Pay withdrawals for your account. Availability can vary by operator, website or app, and device, so check the cashier for your account.
Can I withdraw casino winnings to Apple Pay?
If the casino supports Apple Pay withdrawals, winnings can be returned to the deposit method up to the amount deposited; any excess is paid by another method.
Published by the Casino Slots Adviser NZ team.
