The Government has signalled that communities will receive a share of online gambling revenue from any licensed digital market — a direct response to concerns about gambling revenue distribution as spend moves from physical venues to phones. For players and community groups, the policy direction matters because it determines who benefits from online play and how harms are funded.
According to RNZ reporting, ministers have moved to ensure that money generated online would not bypass local grants entirely. That clarification follows criticism that a digital migration could reduce funds currently returned through pub and club pokies.
How will gambling revenue distribution work under the new direction
Short answer: Government has indicated that any licensed online operators would contribute to community purposes and harm reduction. Detailed mechanics (tax, levy, licence conditions, grant channels) are still to be designed and consulted on, according to the reporting.
New Zealand’s current model returns significant funds from land-based sectors to communities. The policy question for digital is not whether to contribute — ministers now say communities “get a cut” — but how to collect and allocate it. Options include a dedicated levy tied to gross gaming revenue, a licence fee earmarked for grants, or profit-based contributions. The structure needs to fit New Zealand’s existing funding architecture and be enforceable across domestic and offshore licensees.
Summary: The direction of travel is clear — a community share is intended — but the “how much” and “through whom” are to be worked through.
Definition: Distribution mechanism — the legal and financial pathway by which operator payments are collected by the Crown or a trust and subsequently granted to eligible community or public-good recipients.
Follow-ups:
- Will the percentage be fixed in law? That decision has not been announced.
- Who will manage grants? Unconfirmed; existing bodies or a new fund are both plausible.
- Will harm-minimisation be ring-fenced? Signals suggest yes, via a levy or specific allocation.
What could community gambling funding look like compared with pokies and Lotto
Short answer: Pokies in pubs and clubs must return a defined minimum to community grants; Lotto returns profits via the Lottery Grants Board; online would need a bespoke mechanism that mirrors these public benefits without undermining harm safeguards.
New Zealand runs distinct models across gambling products. Class 4 venues (pubs/clubs with slot machines) operate under a statutory return-to-community obligation, while state-run Lotto contributes its profits to nationally administered grants. An online regime could blend elements — for example, a levy tied to online gross receipts with disbursement through an established grants board — but will need robust auditing and transparency to maintain public trust.
| Channel | Current community funding model | Potential online approach (as reported) | Who allocates | Notes | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class 4 (pub/club pokies) | Minimum proportion of gross proceeds must be granted to “authorised purposes” | Not applicable | Licensed Class 4 societies | Well-established grants ecosystem | DIA |
| Casinos (land-based) | Contribution via taxes/levies; no direct community grant obligation like Class 4 | Not applicable | Crown (tax/levy); operators | Contributions not typically grant-administered | DIA |
| Lotto NZ | Profits distributed through Lottery Grants Board | Not applicable | Lottery Grants Board | State monopoly model | Lotto NZ |
| Online (proposed direction) | New policy direction: communities to “get a cut” from licensed online gambling | Levy and/or licence-based community contribution | To be determined | Detailed settings pending consultation | RNZ |
Summary: The online model will need to replicate community benefits while matching digital-specific risks.
Definition: Authorised purposes — community, charitable, cultural, or sporting activities for which grants are legally permitted under the Gambling Act.
Follow-ups:
- Does Class 4 set a benchmark for online? It offers a reference point, but online may use different instruments.
- Could a separate digital grants board be created? It’s a policy option; nothing official yet.
- Will small regional groups still access funds? That depends on the allocation model and criteria.
What does this signal about NZ gambling policy and regulation online
Short answer: The Government appears to be edging toward an explicit online gambling policy with licensing, payments into community and harm funds, and stronger oversight, rather than leaving offshore play in a grey zone.
Currently, the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) administers the Gambling Act 2003 and oversees land-based sectors; offshore online casinos remain outside the domestic licensing net, creating enforcement and funding gaps. By signalling community contributions from online operations, ministers are pointing toward a regime where licensed digital operators accept New Zealand-facing obligations, including fiscal contributions and harm-mitigation standards. The key next step is a consultative design process that balances consumer protection, competition, and public benefit.
Summary: New Zealand is moving from ambiguity to articulated online rules with a public-benefit component.
Definition: Licensing — granting operators conditional legal permission to offer products, with enforceable duties (e.g., harm controls, data reporting, payments).
Follow-ups:
- Will offshore sites be blocked if unlicensed? Not stated; technical and legal feasibility would need assessment.
- Will advertising be restricted? Likely part of the policy package, but details are unknown.
- How will RTP and fairness be audited? Through certification and reporting as licence conditions.
How will responsible gambling funding be protected in a digital market
Short answer: Expect an explicit harm-minimisation contribution from online operators — whether via a levy, licence fees, or mandated service funding — and data-sharing to improve early-intervention tools.
Problem gambling services in New Zealand are typically financed through targeted levies on regulated sectors. A digital framework would likely extend that approach to online operators, earmarking funds for awareness, counselling, and treatment. Beyond money, online platforms can provide granular play data to support real-time harm detection measures, self-exclusion synchronisation, and spend/time limit defaults. Effective governance requires transparent allocation and independent evaluation to ensure funds track actual risk.
Key Risks and Compliance Considerations:
- Data integrity and privacy: Operators must share usable harm data while protecting identities.
- Cross-operator exclusions: Centralised self-exclusion reduces leakage across multiple sites.
- AML/CFT and affordability checks: Monitor financial harm signals without over-collecting.
- Marketing controls: No inducements that undermine safer-play settings.
- Testing and auditing: Certified RNGs, clear RTP disclosure, and independent reviews.
- Dispute resolution: Accessible channels with binding remedies for players.
A well-structured levy plus enforceable product standards should protect funding and outcomes.
Follow-ups:
- Will there be a separate “digital harm” levy? Likely, but instruments are to be designed.
- Can players see their risk metrics? Good practice suggests yes; it can be mandated.
- Will community grants fund prevention too? They can — allocation settings determine the split.
What does this mean for players and clubs reliant on slot machine revenue
Short answer: If spending shifts online, local grants tied to slot machine revenue could fall unless online contributions are designed to compensate. Players gain from stronger digital safeguards, but clubs will want predictable replacement funding.
Class 4 gaming machines (pokies) currently return a mandated minimum of gross proceeds to community grants — DIA guidance sets this at not less than 40% of gross gambling proceeds for most societies. That mechanism underwrites many local sport, cultural, and service organisations. As play migrates online, a direct, transparent replacement for those grants becomes critical to avoid sudden funding gaps for grassroots groups. For players, a licensed digital market can bring consistent safer-play tools and recourse, but it mustn’t incentivise harmful migration from supervised venues to less visible digital play.
Summary: Communities need continuity; players need safety parity across channels.
Definition: Gross gambling proceeds (GGP) — total bets minus prizes.
Follow-ups:
- Will Class 4 obligations change? No change has been announced.
- Can online funds be ring-fenced for regional clubs? That’s a design choice policymakers must weigh.
- Are venue-based host responsibility tools still relevant? Yes — and online needs equivalent or better controls.
Pros and cons: should online casino revenue be earmarked for communities
Short answer: Earmarking can preserve public benefits as gambling goes digital, but it adds complexity and risks misaligned incentives if not carefully designed and audited.
Pros of allocating a community share:
- Preserves local grants as spending shifts channels.
- Creates parity with land-based obligations, improving fairness.
- Enables stable funding for harm prevention and treatment linked to actual digital risk.
- Builds public licence — social acceptance of the sector through clear returns.
Cons and trade-offs:
- Risk of soft dependence: community groups reliant on volatile gambling flows.
- Complex administration: auditing offshore operators and grant distribution.
- Potential for perverse incentives if targets emphasise revenue over harm minimisation.
- International competitiveness concerns if obligations are mis-calibrated.
A clear framework with independent oversight can maximise the upsides and limit the downsides.
Follow-ups:
- Could general taxation replace earmarking? It could, but earmarks improve transparency.
- Will obligations deter reputable operators? Balanced settings should not.
- Can grants be capped to manage volatility? Yes — smoothing rules can be built in.
How might the money flow in practice
Short answer: Expect a mix of licence fees, levies on net or gross online receipts, and penalties for non-compliance, with allocations through existing national boards or a dedicated digital fund — details pending consultation.
To operationalise a community share, policymakers can combine:
- A base licence fee to fund regulatory oversight.
- A levy on online gross gaming revenue feeding two buckets: (1) responsible gambling funding and (2) community grants.
- Penalties for breaches, directed to harm initiatives.
- Transparent annual reporting, including regional distribution to avoid leaving small communities behind.
For community groups accustomed to poker machine funding, continuity planning matters: timelines, transitional support, and clear eligibility rules will reduce uncertainty.
Summary: The architecture is straightforward in principle; execution — especially audit, data and regional equity — is the challenge.
Definition: Levy — a hypothecated charge set in law to fund specified purposes.
Follow-ups:
- Will grants be contestable? Likely, mirroring current models.
- Can iwi/Māori organisations access funds? Eligibility rules will set this; current systems do.
- How is “online gambling revenue new zealand” tracked? Through operator reporting and verified audits.
Where does this leave NZ gambling policy right now
Short answer: The Government has reset the direction to ensure communities share in the proceeds of a future licensed online market, while signalling stronger harm controls. The next phase is technical design and public consultation under NZ gambling regulation.
For players, this indicates a move toward regulated choice with clearer protections. For community organisations and councils, it offers a pathway to maintain or rebalance grants not tied solely to venue-based play. For offshore operators eyeing New Zealand, it foreshadows licensing, contribution obligations, and data/reporting standards consistent with national objectives.
Verdict: A community share of digital proceeds aligns online with established NZ norms — return public value, fund harm services, and regulate with transparency. The policy hinges on percentages, governance, and enforcement: get those right and both players and communities can benefit; get them wrong and gaps in funding and protection will persist. The signal is encouraging, but scrutiny of the final settings will matter most.
For impartial analysis of game mechanics and player returns, see 101RTP. If you’re comparing licensed options and safeguards, our casinos directory applies the same transparency-first lens. Curious about specific titles? Explore New Zealand’s popular pokies and their RTP profiles.
