A 29 October 2025 report signals a policy push to channel “online casino funding” into local sports and community groups. If adopted, it would shift a share of nz gambling revenue from offshore operators towards domestic grants, while testing how to balance harm minimisation with fair community returns.
What is the proposed online casino funding model for NZ communities?
Short answer: The report indicates a plan to collect money from offshore online gambling and redirect it to local grants. The mechanism could be a levy, licence regime, or both, earmarking funds for community groups, sports clubs, and harm prevention.
The Scoop Business report describes a proposal to bring offshore online gambling into a structured contribution model. Because offshore sites accept New Zealand players without a domestic licence, the concept is to capture value—via a levy, licensing fees, or ring-fenced payments—and earmark it to community and sports grants. Any scheme would need statutory authority and a regulator to administer collection, auditing, and distribution. It would also need to integrate with problem gambling funding and existing grant systems without duplicating them.
Summary: The proposal is about capturing offshore digital gambling value for public benefit while embedding robust safeguards and oversight.
Definition: Levy — a statutory charge applied to an activity, used here to fund community or harm-minimisation purposes.
Follow-ups:
- Is this law? No. It’s a reported policy direction; legislative detail has not been finalised.
- Who would administer it? Likely the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) if enacted, consistent with current roles.
- Would offshore casinos be licensed in NZ? The report suggests licensing is on the table, but specifics are not confirmed.
- Would problem gambling services get a share? The concept implies ring-fencing, but the split is yet to be defined.
How does nz gambling revenue flow into community funding NZ today?
Short answer: Today’s community funding NZ relies on regulated channels like Class 4 gaming machine trusts, Lotto NZ grants, and some sector-specific distributions. Offshore online casinos are outside NZ licensing and do not contribute directly to domestic grants.
Under the Gambling Act 2003, the regulator is the NZ Department of Internal Affairs (DIA). Community grants primarily flow from:
- Class 4 (pub/club) gaming machine trusts distributing net proceeds to authorised purposes.
- Crown entities such as Lotto NZ, which fund sport, arts, and community initiatives through their surplus distributions.
- TAB NZ supports racing and sport under its mandate.
Casinos, gaming machine operators, and other sectors also pay problem gambling levies set periodically by government. However, offshore online casinos operate beyond NZ licensing and do not participate in these domestic return mechanisms. The reported proposal aims to change that gap by capturing value from online gambling contributions in the offshore channel.
Summary: NZ already routes regulated gambling proceeds to community purposes; offshore online casino activity sits outside those mechanisms.
Definition: Authorised purposes — community, charitable, or other approved non-commercial purposes eligible for grant funding under the Act.
Follow-ups:
- Do offshore sites pay NZ tax now? Generally, no direct NZ levy applies to unlicensed offshore gambling.
- Where can I see official rules? Check the regulator’s site: DIA.
- Where do spending stats come from? National statistics are published by agencies such as Stats NZ.
- Are online slots legal in NZ? Lotto NZ and TAB NZ operate under specific statutory permissions; offshore casinos are not locally licensed.
Could sports funding NZ expand under an offshore levy?
Short answer: Potentially, yes. A new channel could increase sports funding NZ, but gains depend on design: coverage of operators, compliance, enforcement, and the share earmarked for sport versus broader community and harm-minimisation needs.
If a levy or licence fee is introduced for offshore casino activity, policymakers could direct a portion to national and local sport. This would complement existing streams such as gaming trust grants and Crown distributions. Real uplift would hinge on:
- Scope: which products and operators are covered.
- Rate and base: how the levy is calculated and enforced.
- Allocation: the percentage dedicated to sport compared with other sectors and harm services.
- Integrity: avoiding substitution effects where current local grants shrink as new funds appear.
Local sports funding could benefit from more predictable multi‑year allocations if the scheme is ring‑fenced and stable, smoothing the boom‑bust cycles many clubs face.
Summary: Uplift is plausible, but only if the design secures broad coverage and ring‑fenced, predictable allocations without displacing existing grants.
Definition: Ring‑fencing — legally earmarking funds for specified purposes so they cannot be diverted elsewhere.
Follow-ups:
- Would elite or grassroots be prioritised? That would be set in allocation rules; transparent criteria will matter.
- Could women’s and para sport be targeted? Yes, if policy settings explicitly prioritise equity outcomes.
- Would councils be involved? They could be, particularly in facility grants or regional coordination.
- Could funds support coaching and governance? If rules allow operational spend, not just capital projects.
What might gambling revenue distribution look like if the policy proceeds?
Short answer: The policy could blend a levy, licensing, and ring‑fenced accounts into a single gambling revenue distribution system. Priorities would likely include community groups, sports, problem gambling services, and compliance workloads.
Several distribution models could be considered:
- Central allocation model: a national pool with defined percentages for community grants, sports, Māori and Pasifika initiatives, youth, and problem gambling services.
- Trust‑based model: accredited trusts disburse grants under standard criteria and publish audited returns.
- Performance‑linked model: allocations adjust based on harm metrics and operator compliance (e.g., safer gambling outcomes).
A visible, rules‑based casino revenue distribution framework would also need strong auditing, timely publication of grant lists, and clear appeals. Importantly, distribution mechanics should dovetail with existing grant ecosystems to avoid duplication.
Summary: Expect a transparent, audited framework with earmarked shares for communities and harm reduction, aligned to current systems where possible.
Definition: Distribution framework — the rules and processes setting how collected funds are allocated, reported, and reviewed.
Follow-ups:
- Will funds be regionalised? Policymakers might set regional quotas or weight by participation rates.
- Who sets priorities? Likely Ministers via regulation, with input from DIA and stakeholders.
- Will small groups be able to apply? That depends on grant criteria; accessibility is a key equity lever.
- How often are allocations reviewed? Reviews could align with levy cycles or annual budget processes.
Policy levers and funding channels at a glance
This table summarises how a scheme could be structured, noting current vs proposed status and likely beneficiaries.
| Mechanism | Applies to | Status | Primary beneficiary | Notes | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Offshore levy | Offshore online casino play by NZ users | Proposed | Community groups, sports, harm services | Requires legislation, enforcement, and reporting | DIA |
| Licensing regime | Offshore operators seeking NZ market access | Proposed | Compliance, consumer protection | Enables standards, data sharing, and penalties | DIA |
| Ring‑fenced grants | Allocated pools for community and sport | Proposed | Local clubs, facilities, youth programmes | Needs clear criteria and audits | Scoop Business |
| Harm‑min funding | Sector‑wide levy component | Current/Proposed | Treatment, prevention, research | Align with existing problem‑gambling levy settings | DIA |
Wrap‑up: Any workable model will combine collection, allocation, auditing, and public reporting — with compliance teeth and clear beneficiary rules.
What responsible gambling benefits and safeguards are essential?
Short answer: Strong identity checks, activity monitoring, self‑exclusion, and data reporting are baseline. Funding must not grow by encouraging more play; instead, it should come with stricter harm minimisation and independent oversight.
Key safeguards include:
- Mandatory account‑level controls: deposit limits, time‑outs, and easy self‑exclusion.
- Real‑time monitoring and intervention: risk flags for binge play, chasing losses, or unusual spend.
- Data transparency: standardised reporting to the regulator on spend, sessions, and harm metrics.
- Marketing limits: no inducements to vulnerable groups; clear opt‑outs.
- Independent audits: third‑party reviews of controls and data accuracy.
- Dedicated harm funding: predictable support for services, including culturally responsive care.
Summary: Benefits only materialise if safer‑gambling protections tighten, reporting is standardised, and evaluation is independent.
Definition: Self‑exclusion — a tool that lets people voluntarily block themselves from gambling for a set period or permanently.
Follow-ups:
- Can blocks apply across all sites? A national register would help, but cross‑border enforcement is complex.
- Will affordability checks be used? They could be, with privacy‑by‑design safeguards.
- Who evaluates outcomes? The regulator or an independent evaluator should publish periodic reviews.
- Does youth protection change? Age checks and marketing limits would be central.
Pros and cons for communities if online casino funding proceeds
If NZ channels money from offshore gambling into local grants, there are tangible upsides — and non‑trivial risks. Communities should weigh both before endorsing any model.
Pros:
- New funding channel: Diversifies revenue for clubs, facilities, and community services.
- Predictability: Ring‑fencing can stabilise multi‑year planning for small organisations.
- Transparency uplift: A formal regime enables auditing and public reporting of grants.
- Harm funding: A larger, more stable pool for prevention, treatment, and research.
Cons:
- Revenue dependency risk: Budgeting around gambling-derived funds can normalise harmful spend.
- Substitution effects: New funds might displace existing grants instead of growing the pie.
- Enforcement challenges: Offshore compliance and collection are complex and resource‑intensive.
- Equity concerns: Without deliberate design, allocations may miss priority or underserved groups.
Wrap‑up: Benefits are real but contingent on design. A cautious, harm‑first approach is essential to prevent perverse incentives.
Follow-ups:
- Could grants favour facilities over programmes? Criteria must balance capital and operational needs.
- Will rural clubs benefit? Regional weighting can help ensure fair geographic coverage.
- Can communities opt out? Local consultation could inform allocation and eligibility.
- Is there a sunset clause? Policymakers might include reviews or expiry to reassess efficacy.
What are the key risks and compliance considerations for a new regime?
Any scheme should state risks upfront and address them in regulation, licensing conditions, and enforcement protocols.
Key Risks and Compliance Considerations:
- Cross‑border enforcement: Ensuring offshore operators pay and comply; requires penalties and international cooperation.
- Data integrity: Standardised reporting and independent audits to verify contributions and safer‑gambling metrics.
- Allocation integrity: Clear, published criteria; conflict‑of‑interest management; appeals and complaints processes.
- Harm neutrality: Funding levels must not depend on increasing gambling spend; decouple targets from turnover.
- Privacy and security: Robust handling of personal data if affordability or activity checks are used.
- Market displacement: Prevent undermining existing community funding ecosystems or local operators.
Wrap‑up: Compliance is not an afterthought — it’s the backbone of any credible model. Strong rules and transparent reporting protect both players and beneficiaries.
Follow-ups:
- Who sets penalties? Likely via regulation and licence conditions, overseen by DIA.
- Will there be public grant registers? Transparency is expected for trust and accountability.
- How are disputes handled? An appeals path and ombudsman-style process could be mandated.
- What about data sharing? Standard schemas and secure portals reduce reporting friction.
How would this interact with existing nz gambling revenue channels?
Short answer: The design should complement, not cannibalise, current channels. Coordination with existing trusts, Lotto NZ distributions, and problem‑gambling levies is essential to avoid duplication and confusion.
A practical approach would map today’s grant flows, then place the new stream alongside them with explicit rules: which purposes qualify, how double‑funding is prevented, and where priority gaps (e.g., women’s sport, rural facilities, disability access) will be targeted. Governance should include representatives from community sectors, with published minutes and decisions. A transparent gambling tax allocation rule would clarify how much goes to community grants, harm services, evaluation, and administration.
Summary: Integration beats reinvention. Clarity and coordination reduce friction and protect existing beneficiaries.
Definition: Double‑funding — the same project being financed twice from different public or quasi‑public sources.
Follow-ups:
- Will gaming machine trusts change? Not necessarily; alignment and data sharing matter most.
- Could councils co‑fund projects? Yes, co‑funding can stretch scarce capital where needed.
- Are admin costs capped? Caps and benchmarking keep more money reaching the front line.
- How are conflicts managed? Declarations and recusal rules should be standard.
Will this reduce harm or just move money around?
Short answer: It can reduce harm if controls tighten and funding supports prevention and treatment; it merely moves money if compliance is weak and allocations chase volume. Design choices decide the outcome.
The strongest case for the proposal is that it formalises obligations for offshore operators and brings their activity into NZ’s public‑interest frame. The risk is symbolic change with little on‑the‑ground impact. Independent evaluation, public dashboards, and sanctions for non‑compliance will determine whether safer‑gambling outcomes improve. Critically, gambling profits community narratives should not overshadow the lived impact of harm — evaluation must include health, equity, and family‑level indicators, not just grant totals.
Summary: Harm reduction must be the headline KPI. Funding is a means, not the end.
Definition: KPI — key performance indicator; a measurable value that demonstrates effectiveness against a goal.
Follow-ups:
- Can we tie allocations to harm trends? Yes, performance‑linked rules can weight funds toward prevention.
- What about Māori and Pasifika priorities? Co‑design and dedicated streams can address inequities.
- How do we measure success? Mix financial metrics with wellbeing and participation indicators.
- Is publicity a risk? Communications should avoid glamorising gambling; focus on transparency.
Verdict
New Zealand has a chance to capture value from offshore gambling and turn it into tangible local benefits — but only if “online casino funding” is built on harm‑first principles, robust oversight, and strict transparency. The promise is additional nz gambling revenue routed to communities without normalising more play. The test will be enforcement against offshore operators, fair allocation rules, and honest public reporting. Players, clubs, and community leaders should watch the fine print — especially how compliance, evaluation, and ring‑fencing are written into law.
For impartial analysis of games and operators, visit 101RTP and our independent casinos catalogue. If you play, prioritise safety — understand volatility, features, and fair return. Curious about game mechanics? Our pokies hub explains RTP and risk in plain language.
