Rotorua Lakes Council Calls For Fair Share Of Online Gambling Profits
The controversial bill has sparked concerns from sporting organisations, who fear it will impact existing funding models.
However, the minister presenting the bill has argued there is little evidence to support the case and warned that community funding provisions could do more harm than good.
New Zealanders can currently gamble on offshore websites, but it is largely unregulated.
The proposed bill, which passed its first reading in July, aims to regulate offshore online casino gambling and license up to 15 international operators.
At present, the bill offers no obligation for operators to provide community funding.
In its submission on Friday, Rotorua Lakes Council urged the select committee to consider adding a policy requiring a percentage of profit to be returned to communities.
The council also wanted a proposed 12% online gambling duty to be reinvested into local problem gambling.
'It is only right that where possible, profits generated from gambling [are] reinvested into local communities through initiatives that aim to uplift and provide long-lasting change,' the council submission said.
The submission also raised significant concerns around online and social media advertising and its impact on younger and inexperienced gamblers.
At present, proceeds from Class 4 gaming machines, or pokies, are managed by community gaming trusts.
Legislation requires they return at least 40% of net proceeds into the community in the form of grants, with more than $300 million distributed annually to community groups, including those involved in sport, education, health and the arts.
Sporting organisations believe they are particularly vulnerable to the new bill, with gaming trust funding playing a huge role in grassroots activity.
Last year, sport was by far the leading recipient of such grants in Rotorua, receiving $3.25m of the $7.4m available – more than double the next highest category received.
Regional sport trust Sport Bay of Plenty received nearly $360,000 in grants from the Lion Foundation and the New Zealand Community Trust in the 2024 financial year.
The trust is one of more than 50 sporting organisations nationwide that have formed a 'collective sport voice' urging the Government to ensure online casino profits return to communities.
Sport Bay of Plenty said the organisation opposes the current form of the bill, which 'fails to uphold the long-standing principle that gambling profits should benefit the community'.
It highlighted that roughly half of the funding from sport grants goes to clubs, covering expenses such as equipment, uniforms and coaching, with none going to high performance.
Sport Bay of Plenty would not comment on the ethical concerns raised regarding gambling money largely funding community sport.
A 2020 white paper by the Problem Gambling Foundation, Hāpai te Hauora and the Salvation Army warned that the current model is ethically and financially unstable, with funds disproportionately sourced from vulnerable, problem-gambling populations in deprived areas.
Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden expressed concern this week in Parliament over repeating the same model with online gambling.
'When community groups are reliant on funding from the proceeds of gambling, there is an incentive to increase gambling in order to increase revenue for those organisations,' van Velden said.
The Department of Internal Affairs had advised the minister that this model would make it harder to reduce gambling, because 'community organisations are dependent on the funding that they receive'.
Van Velden also said there is 'no evidence' that regulation of online gambling will reduce the current funding pool, but remained 'open' to the idea of community returns.
She will meet representatives from the sporting community this week.
Rotorua has 24 Class 4 venues.
This is higher than the national average by population proportion.
The current Class 4 and TAB venue policy caps gaming machines at 350, but that is currently exceeded with 362, with 74% of pokies in the district's poorest areas.
Annual gambling losses in Rotorua exceed $26m and in 2022-23, 5.33% of gambling interventions were in Rotorua, ranking third nationwide, above Wellington, Hamilton and Tauranga.
Rotorua Mayor Tania Tapsell supported the council's submission but previously admitted deep concerns from the community 'around the morals' of the current model.
'Even though it benefits the community, we know it is being collected by an activity that causes significant harm in our community,' Tapsell said in a council meeting in late July.
Submissions for the Online Casino Gambling Bill closed on Sunday, with a subsequent report due in November.
Note: Mathew Nash was previously employed as communications manager at Sport Bay of Plenty.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
24 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Te reo Maori is ‘normal'; stop treating it like it is not
Not ''abnormal'' language. PHOTO: ODT FILES If you can say the word "car", you can say the word "karakia". If you can say the word "for" you can say the word "koro". Unless of course if you are the minister of education, in which case, the complexity of using the same vowel sound for the same letters in both English and Māori words is too great a language hurdle. This is the official reason for the elimination of common reo Māori being removed from the Ready to Read Phonics Plus series of books. This decision by the minister has caused widespread condemnation and was recently described as "white supremacy". Some people will struggle with this term being used to describe the actions of the minister and ministry. White supremacy invokes the common image of skin-headed Nazis, hateful violence and destruction. So, is the minister's decision an act of white supremacy? White supremacy is a term that is not just used to describe individuals. It is an ideology that arises from the settler-colonisation of Aotearoa and Te Waipounamu and from a desperate grip on monolingualism seen almost nowhere else in the world. It is a term used to describe how racism is built into the systems that govern us. When racism is built into our systems of governance in Aotearoa New Zealand, we see it when the language, culture and people of Māori and other non-Pākehā ethnicities are treated like an aberration or not "normal". The treatment of non-Pākehā culture and language as "not normal" is evident in many ways. We saw an example recently when the minister for justice described the haka in Parliament as lacking "civility". But it is most prominent in the different ways te reo Māori is being eliminated from public view. The argument government uses is English is "normal" and te reo Māori is not "normal". It is untrue, and when this false argument drives government policy, that policy can be rightly described as white supremacy. The Māori Language Act 1987 made te reo Māori an official language of New Zealand, the first time any language was legislated as an official language. Legislation confirming New Zealand sign language as such followed in 2006. The effect of these two Acts is to give all New Zealanders the right to use te reo Māori and New Zealand sign language in legal proceedings and it places obligations on public services to make provision for their use. The use of te reo Māori is therefore protected by law. This was a great start. The kohanga reo movement, kura kaupapa Māori and the oversubscription of adult te reo Māori classes across the country all pile on evidence of the fact New Zealanders are increasingly using and wanting to use te reo Māori in their everyday language. It would be quite reasonable to think then te reo Māori is normal. And it is. Most likely, whether you "speak" te reo or not, you also use Māori words like kiwi, kai, waka and mana. You may often say "ka pai" when your kids do something well, "ka kite", or the peculiarly New Zealand slang of "ka keets" when you drop your kids or your "moko" at their "kura". You might baulk at the use of the word "Pākehā", but you still say it and know what it means. You almost certainly say, or know what kia ora means, especially when someone overseas says it to you when they discover you are a New Zealander. You may sign your colleagues' leaving cards with aroha and know what it means when it is written in yours. You might even say taihoa when someone needs to slow down and "holy hika" is making a lovely comeback when something seems surprising or undesired. These are the words our children see, hear and say everyday in some form in the reading, listening and speaking of "English". For the Ministry of Education to now classify these words as "abnormal" in New Zealand English can only be an act of racism built into our system of governance, and therefore rightly described as white supremacy. I admit to being particularly offended at the elimination of the word "koro" from the Ready to Read books. That word means our grandfather, our beloved elder and when it is used by us and by our mokopuna it refers to the utter love and affection we hold for those older men in our lives. To eliminate this word in the readers is to eliminate the depth of that relationship from the language of our moko who are learning to read. If the ministry continues with its plans, the precious relationship that mokopuna Māori have with their koro will disappear in their books. The only elder men who will matter will be Pākehā grandfathers. That is white supremacy. ■ Metiria Stanton Turei is a senior law lecturer at the University of Otago and a former Green Party MP and co-leader.
Otago Daily Times
24 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Hoping to pocket a world title
Riley O'Donnell cannot see which way every ball is going to travel on a pool table. Having a keen eye for strategy and a brain with a maths focus is not a bad start, though. O'Donnell, 21, is heading to Ireland this week to represent New Zealand at the world eightball championships. The University of Otago student is in his third year of a bachelor of science degree with a major in statistics — which naturally begs a question around whether his studies translate nicely to a game built so heavily on judging the right angle. "Actually, a lot of people ask me that," O'Donnell said. "I wouldn't say it directly translates, but I think just the way that my brain works — I'm quite strategy-based. So having a maths brain does help a bit, in terms of how I see the table." O'Donnell grew up in New Plymouth and was introduced to the appeal of pool at a young age. "It's been a part of my life for just under 10 years, maybe nine years or so. "My dad has been into the sport for a very long time, and he got me into it. We've got a pool table at home, so I was playing almost every day growing up, and here I am now." It is just the second time New Zealand has sent a team to the International Eightball Pool Federation world championships. Last year, the Kiwis sent just 12 players — including Dunedin pair Jackson Wright and Blane Watson — but this time, in Ennis, there will be 42 New Zealanders. O'Donnell is in the under-23 squad, alongside Watson, who is back in the North Island. "I'm really looking forward to it. I watched quite a lot last year and talked to people who went. "It just seems like it's going to be a really cool team event and a real good tester to see how we go against the rest of the world. "I've been playing almost every day and at lots of local events. There's nearly something on every night. And the nights when there hasn't been something on, I've been trying to visit people who have a table at home, just to try and get as much table time as I can." O'Donnell did his first year of tertiary study in Christchurch, which has a strong pool community. He was unsure what to expect when he headed south and was concerned he might lose some competitive opportunities. "I didn't even know it was a thing here in Dunedin, but when I came to Bowey's, one of the players recognised me and asked if I wanted to join a team. "It turns out there are almost 300 players in Dunedin, so it's a lot bigger than I expected. "It's a great scene. Everyone is so friendly and supportive. It's nice to be a part of it." O'Donnell previously went with a junior team to the United States in 2018 to play under the American rules, but the world championships will use his preferred English rules.
Otago Daily Times
24 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Villages are a home, not a trap
Retirement villages are not a Ponzi scheme, Michelle Palmer writes. Brian Peat's recent column (Opinion, ODT 18.8.25) makes for fiery reading. He accuses the government of dragging its feet, calls contracts "unfair," and even compares retirement villages to a Ponzi scheme. It is a passionate critique, but passion should not come at the expense of accuracy and the facts. Retirement villages are not financial scams. They are home to more than 53,000 older New Zealanders who, week after week, choose this lifestyle because it works for them. Let us be clear: a Ponzi scheme is a fraud that collapses when no new money comes in. Retirement villages are the opposite. They are heavily regulated, legally transparent, and backed by bricks, mortar, and decades of investment. Residents receive independent legal advice before they sign anything. The licence-to-occupy model and deferred management fee (DMF) are disclosed upfront, and they fund the services, security and communities that villages provide. Throwing around words like "Ponzi" may grab headlines, but it insults both operators who act within the law and village residents who made an informed, deliberate choice. Peat's strongest criticism is over exit payments. He claims residents' money is "routinely held for years" and points to a figure of $2.8billion in "interest-free funds" as evidence. This is misleading. That number reflects the combined value of all resident units across multiple operators, not idle cash sitting in a bank account. Those funds are tied up in bricks and mortar, village infrastructure, maintenance and services, and they cannot simply be withdrawn on demand. The average time for repayment is about five and a-half months, longer than a year ago, but entirely in line with normal property settlement times and the realities of relicensing homes to new residents after refurbishment, marketing and settlement. Operators do not benefit from delay, they only receive their own return when a new resident enters. More than 60% now voluntarily pay interest if repayments take longer than six months, weekly fees stop when a resident exits, and the DMF is capped at that point. These are safeguards that ensure costs are not piling up after someone has left. The idea of forcing operators to hold all exit payments in trust sounds simple, but it is complete nonsense — who would pay the bank back for the cost of units and facilities if the money is held in trust? Retirement villages are long-term, capital-intensive projects that recent independent research by Grant Thornton shows takes more than 20 years to break even. Imposing rigid trust requirements would push up fees, increase entry costs, and ensure the demise of smaller community and charitable villages, precisely the people and places most at risk if reforms are done without care. Retirement village operators are investing in modern care facilities that directly support the wellbeing of older New Zealanders. They are the only parties building new care beds. Weakening the model would harm both the infrastructure and the people it cares for. We can see the consequences elsewhere. In parts of Australia, mandatory buy-back rules forced operators to pay out regardless of resale. The result was higher fees for residents, the closure of smaller villages, and less choice for older people. That is not the "fairness" outcome anyone intends. Mr Peat also suggests residents should share in "profits" if the model is resident-funded. That misunderstands what a retirement village is. Villages are not investment products — they are homes. The DMF is the mechanism that recovers the cost of running the community over a resident's time living in a village — staff, maintenance, facilities, and services — not a dividend pool. Without it, upfront and ongoing charges would rise dramatically, putting these communities out of reach for many older New Zealanders. None of this dismisses residents' concerns. We welcome the review of the Retirement Villages Act and support improvements like clearer contracts, fees stopping on vacation of units and stronger dispute resolution. But reform must be grounded in evidence and designed to preserve choice, not destroy it. Resident satisfaction cannot be ignored. Even Brian Peat acknowledges that all surveys consistently show over 90% of residents are happy with their decision, enjoying safety, companionship, independence, and certainty of cost and a pathway to care. To suggest they are "trapped" or "exploited" misrepresents reality and undermines the very people the column claims to defend. Older New Zealanders deserve fairness and they deserve choice. Quick fixes, sensational claims, and simplistic analogies will achieve neither. Of course, moving to a village is entirely your choice — no-one is forcing you. But about 130 older Kiwis are making that choice every week. Complaining about a choice made, especially after compulsory legal advice was required to ensure all terms were understood, is not the Kiwi way. Retirement villages are communities that thousands of New Zealanders call home and that deserves to be respected. ■ Michelle Palmer is executive director of the Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand.
