New Zealand’s Internal Affairs Minister opposes online gambling community-funding proposal

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/10/29: New Zealand raises tax in online gambling bill to enable funding of community groups 2025/07/08: FanDuel appoints SVP of Public Affairs and Head of Federal Affairs 2025/10/24: Auckland cricket clubs fear funding loss under New Zealand’s proposed online gambling bill 2025/04/07: New Zealand tribal leaders call for pause to online gambling changes

The Backstory

Why community funding is back at the center

New Zealand’s overhaul of online gambling has become a proxy battle over who benefits and who bears risk as the market moves from an offshore free-for-all to a licensed regime. The latest flash point is whether to earmark a cut of gambling taxes for community groups. The government initially pitched a regulatory framework to protect players and corral offshore operators, then added a dedicated community funding stream after public feedback. Now the Internal Affairs minister is pushing back, warning that tying social spending to gambling proceeds could entrench dependence and create incentives to grow wagering. The dispute underscores a core tension in the reform: balancing harm minimization against the country’s tradition of returning gambling proceeds to local clubs and charities.

The political and policy stakes are high. The online market is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and the cabinet has debated whether a four percent slice of taxes for community returns would deliver NZ$10 million to NZ$20 million in its early years. Supporters say that recognizes longstanding practice in land-based gaming. Critics argue it risks normalizing gambling as a revenue source while inviting pressure to expand the channel if community budgets tighten. With the bill still moving through Parliament, the question of whether online play should bankroll social goods has become a defining test of the new framework.

A regulated model takes shape

The government started by confronting an unregulated reality. New Zealanders can legally access thousands of offshore gambling sites, but there are few enforceable standards and limited tools to mitigate harm. The Online Casino Gambling Bill cleared its first reading in Parliament, sending the package to a select committee and opening public submissions. The proposal would cap the market at up to 15 licenses, set strict age checks and compliance obligations, and require licensees to contribute to harm prevention. It also lays out penalties of up to $5 million for breaches and assigns oversight to the Department of Internal Affairs. The measured approach drew early support from parts of the industry that prefer clear rules to the current gray zone. As the bill advanced, the policy conversation shifted from whether to regulate to how the financial architecture should work, especially around social returns and advertising limits, which officials said would be detailed later. For context, see how the online gambling legalization bill cleared its first hurdle.

Grassroots sport fears a funding cliff

Community sport groups, which rely heavily on grants from New Zealand’s Class 4 gaming system, quickly flagged the risk of unintended consequences. The Class 4 model requires at least 40 percent of net proceeds to flow back to communities. By contrast, the new online system charges fees and taxes but does not mandate profit redistribution via grants. That difference has set off alarms among clubs that count on gaming support to cover coaching, equipment, and facilities.

In Auckland, the regional cricket association rallied 16 clubs to warn lawmakers that shifting play online without ensuring comparable community returns could erode a crucial lifeline. Those clubs reported more than NZ$1 million in Class 4 grants this year and forecast NZ$1.5 million next year, much of it earmarked for youth. Without safeguards, they say, fees would rise and access would narrow for families least able to absorb the hit. Their appeal urged Parliament to align the bill with the Gambling Act’s principle that gambling should benefit the community. The concerns are detailed in coverage of how Auckland cricket clubs fear funding loss under the proposed bill.

Maori leaders demand a pause over harm risks

Beyond dollars, the social risk calculus is drawing scrutiny from Maori leaders who say reforms must account for disproportionate harm. The government’s plan to auction 15 online casino licenses by February 2026 prompted the Online Safety Iwi Leaders Group to call for a pause and deeper consultation. Their case: the shift could create new gambling dependents, particularly among Maori families, without sufficient community feedback or guardrails that reflect Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations. They also questioned whether offshore-linked operators would meaningfully support harm mitigation at the community level.

Officials say licensed operators would still pay both offshore and problem gambling levies and that the public will be heard through the select committee process. But the call for a delay underscores political risk if communities perceive that regulation privileges commercial interests over health and social resilience. The pressure campaign is chronicled in reporting on how tribal leaders called for a pause to online gambling changes.

From 12% to 16%: the funding fix that sparked a rethink

To answer complaints that the initial blueprint overlooked New Zealand’s tradition of social returns, Internal Affairs added a mechanism to raise the offshore gambling tax from 12 percent to 16 percent and earmark the extra four points to community groups. The minister positioned the change as a response to submissions that asked for tangible benefits if the state formally regulates online play. She also stressed that harm standards would not be weakened and that the new stream would not replace existing contributions from Class 4 gaming, Lotto, or TAB. A two-year review was built in to monitor impacts and recalibrate. Those details are set out in the government’s explanation of raising the tax to enable funding of community groups.

That fix, however, triggered a counterargument inside government. A cabinet paper questioned whether embedding community returns in the online channel could entrench reliance on gambling revenues, complicate future reform, and prompt pressure to grow activity to meet local funding needs. It also warned that a higher effective tax load could make New Zealand less attractive to reputable operators, undermining the goal of bringing play onshore under enforceable rules. Those concerns set up the current clash over whether the four percent should stand, be pared back, or be designed differently.

What to watch as Parliament weighs trade-offs

The select committee process now carries outsized importance. Lawmakers must reconcile three tensions: sustaining community support for sport and social services, minimizing gambling harm, and building a regulated market that attracts compliant operators. The package already contemplates a structured licensing regime, a problem gambling levy of 1.24 percent of profits, strict age verification, and potential advertising limits. The question is whether a tax carve-out for community returns complements or conflicts with those goals.

If Parliament keeps the four percent earmark, the state will need to define how funds are distributed and how to prevent dependency that skews policy choices. If it drops or reshapes the measure, lawmakers will face pushback from clubs and charities warning of a funding cliff. Communities that rely on Class 4 grants will watch closely for rules that prevent substitution, where online growth cannibalizes venues that deliver higher mandated returns. Meanwhile, Maori leaders will press for guarantees that harm mitigation, consultation, and Treaty considerations are built into licensing and oversight.

The reform’s trajectory is set but not locked. The market cap of up to 15 licenses and the enforcement architecture are likely to survive, given broad support for regulating the status quo. The shape of community funding, and the timeline for reviewing it, remain open. The debate over whether gambling should pay for public goods is not new in New Zealand. What is new is the scale and immediacy of online access, and the political imperative to design a system that captures benefits without expanding harm. The next drafts will show whether lawmakers think a dedicated funding stream helps or hinders that balance.