New Zealand raises tax in online gambling bill to enable funding of community groups

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/10/24: Auckland cricket clubs fear funding loss under New Zealand’s proposed online gambling bill 2025/07/15: New Zealand online gambling legalization bill clears first hurdle 2025/09/18: New Zealand’s online gambling bill faces backlash 2025/08/04: New Zealand sporting organizations unite to oppose online gambling bill

The Backstory

How the proposal reached a flashpoint

New Zealand’s move to regulate online casinos began as a narrow attempt to put guardrails around a fast-growing offshore market. The government’s draft framework cleared its first reading with an 83–39 vote, advancing to select committee with a plan to issue up to 15 licenses, set strict age and harm standards, and recover the cost of oversight through operator fees. The bill contemplated penalties of up to $5 million for breaches and a required contribution to the Problem Gambling Levy, positioning the Department of Internal Affairs as the regulator. Those contours, outlined after the first reading, were welcomed by industry figures who sought certainty on licensing and compliance. But they ignited a political fight over who benefits from a market that has long operated beyond the country’s reach. The initial design sidestepped a longstanding principle embedded in gambling law: that a share of proceeds should flow back to communities.

As framed at first reading, the bill would have allowed offshore-based operators to bid for licenses, pay a gaming tax and levies, and keep profits without a mandated community return. It also opened the door to advertising in New Zealand, subject to future rules. That departure from the model governing gaming machines brought years of precedent into sharp relief. Under the Class 4 system, non-casino gaming machine operators are required to return at least 40% of net proceeds to the public via grants. Advocates argued that any digital regime should mirror the bargain struck with venues that host pokie machines. Lawmakers soon faced a wave of submissions that turned the community benefit gap into the center of the debate.

Backlash from clubs and codes

Sports and community groups coalesced quickly once the bill reached select committee. The Auckland Cricket Association warned that the proposal risked cutting off a lifeline for grassroots sport. In a letter to MPs, the chairs of 16 clubs representing 12,895 registered players detailed how Class 4 grants support coaching, equipment and youth programs, and projected NZ$1.5 million in gaming revenue for 2026 that could be at risk without a clear reinvestment rule. The clubs cautioned that any shortfall would lead to fee increases that would hit vulnerable families first. Their plea asked Parliament to keep the Gambling Act’s community benefit purpose front and center and ensure profits are shared accordingly. Their warning crystallized the fears of local administrators who balance rising costs with access for children, women and community teams.

The critique broadened beyond cricket. More than 50 sporting organizations lined up against the bill’s omission of a mandated community return, calling it a dangerous gap. Leaders stressed that pokie grants channel roughly NZ$170 million a year into community sport, not professional teams, and that shifting gambling spend online without a compensating mechanism would erode that base. They also said there had been little consultation with the sector before the bill’s introduction, sharpening the political risk for a government promising to protect communities. The coalition of codes turned a technical licensing exercise into a referendum on social license and funding equity.

What the select committee heard

Public submissions underscored the scale of the stakes as online gambling grows toward an estimated NZ$800 million market. Critics said the bill’s first draft normalized offshore operators without requiring them to reinvest at levels comparable to land-based systems. They urged ministers to hardwire a community return, warning that advertising and sponsorship by online casinos could reshape the sports economy if not paired with safeguards and reinvestment rules. Officials, for their part, argued that regulation would bring player protections into a space where New Zealanders already gamble and would impose harm minimization and transparency standards missing today. But the consultation record made clear that for many submitters, harm prevention and community benefit were twin pillars, not alternatives.

Local administrators also flagged practical risks tied to timing and transition. Sport Otago’s chief executive said the bill’s advertising and sponsorship provisions could change how clubs finance programs, pressing the case that any operator profiting from New Zealand communities should contribute to their well-being. Nearly 5,000 submissions arrived at committee, most seeking a defined community return. That volume raised the political cost of inaction and forced ministers to address the gap before the bill’s next stage.

The government’s pivot

Facing sustained pressure, ministers moved to add a community funding stream to the bill. The change would lift the offshore gambling tax from 12% to 16%, with the extra four percentage points dedicated to community groups such as sports clubs and grassroots organizations. The government framed the amendment as a response to a clear message from the public that online gambling regulation should produce tangible local benefits. The shift kept harm minimization standards intact, maintained the licensing cap and preserved the regulator’s enforcement tools, while signaling that online operators would contribute beyond compliance costs and levies.

The pivot acknowledges the long-standing policy expectation that gambling proceeds should have a public dividend. It also reflects political realities. After the initial design faced backlash for omitting a community return, and as the bill advanced following its first reading, the coalition of sports bodies elevated the stakes in the select committee process. Their coordinated response, reported widely, made the bill’s passage contingent on fixing what they viewed as a structural flaw. The government’s amendment is an effort to meet that demand without upending the rest of the regulatory architecture.

Open questions as the market shifts online

Even with the new community stream, unresolved issues remain. Ministers have acknowledged uncertainty about how the change will interact with existing Class 4 contributions, Lotto and TAB funding, as gambling spend shifts online. A two-year review is planned to assess whether the tax-funded channel compensates for any decline in grants distributed under current systems and to guide further adjustments. That review will be pivotal for clubs forecasting budgets and for trusts that allocate grants today.

Advertising and sponsorship rules also remain to be finalized, with the government promising more detail in due course. The bill already restricts ads to protect children and requires strong age verification, but the contours of sponsorships could reshape revenue flows in sport. Sector leaders who united to oppose the original omission are likely to press for guardrails that prevent displacement of community funding. Regional voices such as Sport Otago have argued that overseas operators profiting from New Zealand audiences should bear obligations that match their footprint.

Why the backstory matters now

The late-stage shift to earmark funding is both a policy correction and a test of whether taxation alone can replicate decades of grant-based community support. Auckland’s clubs, which detailed how grants cover coaching and children’s equipment, view the risk through the lens of affordability and participation. Their concerns, set out in a letter to MPs, show how even incremental changes in funding streams can ripple through local sport. National codes, meanwhile, see a precedent for how digital markets are integrated into social compacts that have governed gambling since 2003.

As Parliament weighs the amended bill, the causal chain is clear. A framework focused on licensing and harm minimization advanced quickly. The omission of a community return drew thousands of submissions and mobilized sports bodies. The government responded by dedicating a portion of tax to community groups and promising a review to monitor impacts. What happens next will determine whether that fix is sufficient to protect grassroots sport and other community services as online gambling becomes a regulated part of New Zealand’s economy.