- Published on
So this bombshell happened - a venue and a CEO's home raided by DIA (30 Sept 2026). I’m watching on the sidelines with my popcorn like some sort of voyeur waiting for the next action here. A comment by the parent company might be interesting. Crickets (as at publication of this piece). I have no insight as to what DIA were looking for with this action. For the record I did complain to DIA in October 2022 about this entity. My complaint was around their grants practices, in that they seem to give a lot of grants to some relatively new organisations. However the raid could be related to some more back office activities as per this article. There was a note in their 2025 accounts of an issue, and it seems unlikely a venue would be raided for issues around grants. I guess time will tell.
With this entity its important to understand that they are 100% owned by Canterbury West Coast Air Rescue Services – the charity which raises money for the private business who runs Canterbury’s Rescue Helicopters. Regardless of the outcomes of DIA's actions, to me it raises more questions about the reputational risk of marrying a pokie who have been investigated in the past with one of Canterbury's most loved Not for Profits.
Sitting in my To Be Done was a blog on some thoughts around system change (or, possibly a more click-worthy headline: how to save $1.5m from the grant making ecosystem without actually doing much). That’s now up. Below is a dive into their grant distributions to end June 2026. This is an update to the last review in 2024. In 2026, they look to have given away $20.1m, up $2.2m from the previous year. If we look at ARS from an ecosystem view, they are the sixth largest pokie by grants, giving away 5.4% of total pokie grants in calendar year 2025. As at 30 June 2026 they have 30 venues, picking up one in Auckland off Bluesky this year.
Below is a chart looking at where the money goes. You would think the name on the tin gives a hint as to where the grants go. Well, no. In 2026 Sport gets 46% of the total funding, while Air Rescue Services received 38%. Despite operating in the North Island, none of the North Island helicopter rescue services get anything (although according to Granted.govt.nz 2022 - 2025 data Hawkes' Bay's were the only ones to ask). Note Education, which got a grand 2% of available funding in 2026, often does use these grants for sport, but without further disclosure on the purpose of the grant its tricky to classify.
This chart is quite interesting: it sure illustrates the COVID dip in 2021. At the time Air Rescue only had 7.7% of their machines in Auckland, so were not as exposed as others to the Auckland lockdowns.
I do have some concerns over the grants to the parent entity for both Canterbury West Coast Air Rescue Trust and New Zealand Flying Doctor Trust. This money, $7.5m in 2026, flows through to a private business which operates the service. The point is: how do we, as a community, know that the service is keeping a lid on costs. Here is where benchmarking would be awesome: indeed I have managed to pull it off in the past but I came up short this time due to differing information from the various entities around the country who do this work. So sorry.
Sport deserves a wee dive. I have looked at the top ten sports in terms of total dollars over the last twelve years (because – why not). What is readily apparent to anyone is the huge yellow blob and how that’s driven most of the growth in sports grants over the eleven years. That yellow blob is Football. The amount of grants given to footie in twelve years by this outfit has grown by around 790%. Cricket has gone backwards by 24% (which to be fair could be driven by this). Netball is actually up 32%, albeit off a very small base. Horseracing fell off a cliff, down to $18k in 2025, but recovered in 2026 thanks in large part to a $59k grant to Kaikoura Trotting Club. Which is curious seeing there are no ARS venues in Kaikoura.
I do have some concerns over the grants to the parent entity for both Canterbury West Coast Air Rescue Trust and New Zealand Flying Doctor Trust. This money, $7.5m in 2026, flows through to a private business which operates the service. The point is: how do we, as a community, know that the service is keeping a lid on costs. Here is where benchmarking would be awesome: indeed I have managed to pull it off in the past but I came up short this time due to differing information from the various entities around the country who do this work. So sorry.
Sport deserves a wee dive. I have looked at the top ten sports in terms of total dollars over the last twelve years (because – why not). What is readily apparent to anyone is the huge yellow blob and how that’s driven most of the growth in sports grants over the eleven years. That yellow blob is Football. The amount of grants given to footie in twelve years by this outfit has grown by around 790%. Cricket has gone backwards by 24% (which to be fair could be driven by this). Netball is actually up 32%, albeit off a very small base. Horseracing fell off a cliff, down to $18k in 2025, but recovered in 2026 thanks in large part to a $59k grant to Kaikoura Trotting Club. Which is curious seeing there are no ARS venues in Kaikoura.
Some people have written on the huge reliance on pokie money for football (including me), and at the grass roots we see an erosion of volunteering and a growth in “jobs” for supposedly amateur players. One club magically generates $1,576 PER MEMBER from pokies (not this pokie). I strongly believe that peak bodies need to be a little more realistic about these sorts of spends, and as beneficiaries of such largesse we, as citizens, need to be a little more sceptical about the benefits that such organisations expound.
Lets look at the top fifteen entities getting grants in the past three years. Below is a table showing the sum of grants given in the financial year, along with the total number of grants given. Those gluttons for punishment (aka regular readers) know that I see some concern when a pokie gives a large number of grants to a single entity. We have three years under review: some of these organisations are basically getting a grant a month from this outfit. Those of you applying for grants should pick up the phone and find out how these grantseekers are so successful - and how they manage the paperwork!
|
Entity |
2024 |
2025 |
2026 |
TOTAL Sum |
TOTAL Count |
|
Canty West Coast Air Rescue Trust |
$3,344,647 |
$3,197,972 |
$4,249,038 |
$10,791,657 |
63 |
|
New Zealand Flying Doctor Trust |
$3,552,222 |
$2,919,325 |
$3,242,000 |
$9,713,547 |
38 |
|
Nelson Suburbs Football Club Inc |
$296,323 |
$457,254 |
$437,765 |
$1,191,342 |
39 |
|
Cashmere Technical Football Club |
$239,032 |
$345,453 |
$574,293 |
$1,158,778 |
24 |
|
John Walker Find Your Field of Dreams Foundation |
$90,387 |
$412,606 |
$488,839 |
$991,832 |
26 |
|
Dewey Center Foundation |
$270,857 |
$272,900 |
$306,657 |
$850,414 |
28 |
|
Canty Regional Basketball Foundation |
$305,491 |
$213,154 |
$249,204 |
$767,849 |
30 |
|
Jasmine Arts & Cultural Charitable Trust |
$207,368 |
$240,097 |
$262,153 |
$709,618 |
17 |
|
Sport Education Community & Cultural Foundation |
$236,881 |
$218,405 |
$186,000 |
$641,286 |
32 |
|
Birkenhead United Assn Football & Sports Club |
$149,365 |
$226,721 |
$265,111 |
$641,197 |
31 |
|
Theatre Royal Charitable Trust |
$201,536 |
$221.070 |
$210,551 |
$633,157 |
3 |
|
Fencibles United FC |
$233,391 |
$202,572 |
$195,337 |
$631,300 |
27 |
|
Miramar Rangers Assn Football Club |
$208,172 |
$197,238 |
$224,862 |
$630,272 |
34 |
|
Hokitika Community Trust |
$177,102 |
$201,980 |
$228,063 |
$607,144 |
4 |
|
Lower Hutt City AFC |
$193,425 |
$193,272 |
$228,063 |
$562,697 |
32 |
|
Other |
$8,323,328 |
$8,411,459 |
$8,852,450 |
25,587,238 |
2,782 |
|
Grand Total |
$18,029,526 |
$17,931,479 |
$20,148,322 |
$56,109,327 |
3,210 |
The comments from last time stand: not much change but some levels of grant making that are a little eyebrow raising. You can read some of that here, but that Nelson Suburbs Football Club has been subject to a complaint as have a few of the above. Dewey Center Foundation too is interesting: registering as a charity in 2021 this pokie is its only funder. And Dewey is in the same address block as one of the ARS venues. I also wonder about Sport Education Community and Cultural Foundation, which registered as a charity in 2019. The accounts are simple: in and out. It could be that ARS should be applauded for supporting new organisations. But I'm inherently distrustful of most things so I'd have a good look at this. And as for football making up 6 of the top 15 entities..... well
I write about this stuff as believe that as need to understand where funding comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there. These pokies have considerable stewardship over community funding. As a citizenry we allow both those supplying money and those asking for money to operate, and as a community we need to ensure we have oversight over the organisations they choose to fund: are they operating efficiently? Are they leveraging best practice? Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting, and if you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
- Published on
I rabbit on about the grantmaking ecosystem, so much so that people roll their eyes and nod politely while considering where the nearest exit is. Except you.
I am super interested in how grants get into organisations. We have many people in many organisations doing the same jobs from both a grant seeker and grant maker perspective.
Most grant seekers do great work – or at least good work. However we have many grant seekers who may operate their organisation in a less than optimal manner. This could include factors such as cozy relationships with grant makers, poor governance, strong brands and loud voices where the organisation itself doesn’t really play nicely with others, or fail to operate according to best practice.
We have most grant makers who perceive their role as centre of the universe – rather than simply as an enabler to community works. They may pay themselves a lot to distribute “their” money to grant seekers. They may favour certain groups based on business dealings or community ties.
Let’s look at Canterbury West Coast Air Rescue Trust (CWCART). I’m basing the analysis below on their 30 June 2025 accounts which can be found on the Charities website. If you look at these accounts you can see two sets: Group and Parent. The Parent is CWCART and the Group is Air Rescue Services (the pokie), and New Zealand Flying Doctor Trust (NZFDT). Got it?
They have two primary functions within the ecosystem:
- As a Grant seeker via the PARENT they seek grants and donations to fund the Westpac Rescue Helicopter in Canterbury, and the ROA Mining Rescue Helicopter on the West Coast AND (via the Group) the NZFDT.
- As a Grant maker they operate Air Rescue Services, a special purpose pokie with 30 venues all over New Zealand.
They do NOT operate rescue helicopters: this function in both cases is operated by Garden City Helicopters, a private business. Pilots and medics will be employed by GCH. Central Government’s contribution to this rescue service goes to GCH (at least this is what I assume as of course, as a private business, these accounts are not public information).
Firstly, sponsorship. We have Westpac's totalling $849k, and ROA Mining’s of $263k. These sums go to CWCART. NZFDT also looks to attract $469k from other sources.
In addition the team fundraised $4.9m from the community in 2025, up $1.4m from the previous year. The total operating expenses for CWCART to raise that $4.9m were $1.5m.
The pokie, Air Rescue Services, gave CWCART $2.9m in grants. And it looks like NZFDT received $3.2m. ARS then gave a further $10.3 to other community groups (including $4.4m to football – based on my data).
If we look at capex and opex CWCART then gave $4.2m to GCH, up from $3.1m in 2024. It then looks as if the Group gave around $4m to NZFDT in 2025.
The balance sheet for CWCART looks pretty healthy with net assets of $16m. That said there is a note that CWCART will be providing the capex for four new helicopters, so I would expect the 2026 accounts to look a little different. But, if this is the case, I would also expect the demands from GCH to reduce accordingly given that capital sits elsewhere.
So my question is: why bother with the fundraising within CWCART? If the pokie operation were to provide 100% of the amount purported to be needed to run the operation, they could easily cover this simply by getting rid of all the grants to football clubs (as, let’s face it, these grants DO NOT enable kids to play the sport despite the rhetoric). This would remove the $1.5m fundraising cost from the entity, while potentially allowing community donors to redirect some of their giving to other charitable organisations. The corporate sponsorship from Westpac and ROA would probably continue without the CWCART as a go between. On the basis of 2025 accounts, this would add an extra $600k or so to ARS's grants to both CWCART and NZFDT.
Don’t get me wrong: Rescue Helicopters do provide an essential service to New Zealanders. In a nation like ours they are a vital part of our emergency ecosystem. Looking at other accounts of similar entities suggests that me, taxpayer, contributes around 66% of total costs. I did try a small benchmarking exercise (as I did a decade ago) but the service deliverables were not aligned so my wee brain fried. Which is another story around how we, as a community, measure the deliverables of entities that proport to do good for us.
I think the community funding mechanism for these guys is a little off. I suspect that an argument would be “well if the pokie business changes we would be stuffed”. True. However, to me that’s a branding issue: we can see with (for example) the establishment of another Canterbury charity, the Maia Foundation in 2015 generated a pretty good donation revenue pretty quickly without the benefit of any pokie income. My point is that if the need is there for a purpose such as this the community will support.
ARS are not the only such “for purpose” gaming trust: in Canterbury we also have Mainland Foundation, which supports rugby union (amongst a lot of other things). Yet in 2025 Mainland gave around $1.5m to Rugby Union in Canterbury, gave another $1.5m to other groups, and Rugby got an incremental $1.5m from OTHER pokies. So yeah... on my analysis, Mainland could potentially fund all Canterbury rugby clubs from its existing rugby allocation, leaving other pokies to direct their funding elsewhere.
Happy to share my workings if anyone is interested and wants to figure this out.
I write about this stuff as believe that as need to understand where funding comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there. These pokies have considerable stewardship over community funding. As a citizenry we allow both those supplying money and those asking for money to operate, and as a community we need to ensure we have oversight over the organisations they choose to fund: are they operating efficiently? Are they leveraging best practice? Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting, and if you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
- Published on
This article was published today (20 August 2026). I have prepared this press release as a response (with a little help)
The Department of Internal Affairs’ largest-ever gambling prosecution should be a catalyst for a much broader rethink of how New Zealand monitors the $340 million pokie grant system, says independent grant analyst Bridget Frame.
Operation Indago has resulted in 23 people facing more than 500 charges following an investigation into six charities and incorporated societies allegedly used to obtain $3.2 million in gambling grant funding for personal gain. DIA describes the investigation as “mammoth and complex”.
The allegations are serious. But for Frame, who has spent more than a decade analysing publicly available pokie grant data, the bigger question is why New Zealand is relying on major investigations to uncover problems that may be identifiable much earlier through better use of data.
“The question isn’t whether DIA should investigate fraud. Of course it should. The question is whether we can get better at identifying the warning signs before we need a major investigation at all.”
The data is already telling us where to look
New Zealand’s pokie grant system is unusually transparent in some respects. Grant-making data is publicly available, as are charity and incorporated society records, financial accounts and information about gambling venues.
Yet these datasets largely sit in separate places.
Frame’s own analysis has found a range of indicators that could be used to identify organisations requiring additional scrutiny.
These include:
None of these indicators proves wrongdoing.
That is precisely the point.
They are risk indicators that could allow a grant-maker or regulator to ask better questions before money is distributed — rather than discovering problems after millions of dollars have been paid out.
Frame has been using publicly available data to do exactly this kind of analysis for years, including benchmarking organisations against one another and examining relationships between grant recipients, grant-makers and venues. More recently, this has included building a database of venue ownership and company relationships because the information required to assess those relationships is not readily available in one place.
We shouldn’t need to be detectives
“The frustrating thing is that much of this isn’t particularly sophisticated,” says Frame.
“With a decent database and some sensible rules, you can identify organisations that look unusual and then have a human look at them.
“You don’t need to accuse anyone of anything. You simply need to ask: is this normal?”
That is particularly important in a system distributing hundreds of millions of dollars.
In 2025, Class 4 operators distributed approximately $340 million to New Zealand community organisations, while Government received around $300 million in gambling taxes and duties. There were more than 42,000 grant applications involving approximately 9,700 organisations.
At that scale, relying primarily on manual assessment and complaints is not an efficient risk-management strategy.
Prevention is cheaper than investigation
Operation Indago demonstrates the potential consequences of discovering problems late.
The investigation involved six organisations, 23 defendants and more than 500 charges. DIA describes it as its largest-ever prosecution.
The cost is not simply the $3.2 million allegedly obtained improperly.
There is the cost of investigation, prosecution and court processes. There is the regulatory time involved. And, most importantly, there is the opportunity cost to the communities that could otherwise have received the money.
“We shouldn’t measure the cost of fraud only by the amount that was taken,” says Frame. “We should also ask what it costs us to discover it after the event.”
A relatively modest investment in proactive data analysis could therefore pay for itself many times over.
The pokie system actually has some things going for it
This is not an argument for dismantling pokie funding.
In fact, one of the things that stands out from Frame’s analysis is that pokie grant-making has some significant advantages over other parts of New Zealand’s grant ecosystem.
It is relatively fast, reaches a very broad range of community organisations, has relatively simple application processes and operates with a high-trust model.
Those are worth preserving.
The problem is that high trust needs good risk management sitting underneath it.
Frame estimates the wider New Zealand grant-making ecosystem costs around $260 million a year. The objective should therefore be to improve integrity without simply adding another layer of administration to a system that already performs relatively efficiently.
From reactive enforcement to proactive risk management
The answer is not necessarily more people reading more applications.
It is better information.
A national risk-monitoring framework could bring together existing information about:
This could generate risk flags for further human review.
It could also allow grant-makers to benchmark recipients against comparable organisations.
That matters because a grant isn’t necessarily suspicious simply because it is large.
It may become interesting when it is large relative to the size, activity, income or characteristics of the organisation receiving it.
That is an area where benchmarking can be particularly useful.
Frame has previously used this approach to examine grant funding across sports and community organisations, including comparing grant funding with measures such as membership, activity and income.
An opportunity to modernise the system
The current investigation provides an opportunity to move beyond a cycle of complaint, investigation and prosecution.
There are three practical changes that could make a difference:
1. Introduce risk-based monitoring
Use existing grant, charity, company and venue data to identify unusual patterns and relationships for further review.
2. Improve information sharing
Create a more complete picture of organisations, people, grant-makers and venues rather than assessing each grant application in isolation.
3. Introduce independent oversight where significant concerns arise
Where credible concerns are raised about a grant-making process, an independent observer could provide additional assurance around proceeds committee decision-making.
These measures could strengthen the system without turning every grant application into a compliance exercise.
Protecting the money — and the system
New Zealand has effectively created a very large community funding mechanism through the gambling system.
The public has a legitimate interest in knowing that the money is going where it is intended, that grant-makers are making sound decisions and that organisations receiving funding are operating appropriately.
“The majority of pokie funding goes to legitimate community organisations doing good work,” says Frame.
“That’s exactly why we should be serious about protecting the system from the people who want to exploit it.”
Operation Indago shows that enforcement can find serious problems. The next step is making sure we get better at finding the warning signs before we need Operation Indago.
ENDS
The Department of Internal Affairs’ largest-ever gambling prosecution should be a catalyst for a much broader rethink of how New Zealand monitors the $340 million pokie grant system, says independent grant analyst Bridget Frame.
Operation Indago has resulted in 23 people facing more than 500 charges following an investigation into six charities and incorporated societies allegedly used to obtain $3.2 million in gambling grant funding for personal gain. DIA describes the investigation as “mammoth and complex”.
The allegations are serious. But for Frame, who has spent more than a decade analysing publicly available pokie grant data, the bigger question is why New Zealand is relying on major investigations to uncover problems that may be identifiable much earlier through better use of data.
“The question isn’t whether DIA should investigate fraud. Of course it should. The question is whether we can get better at identifying the warning signs before we need a major investigation at all.”
The data is already telling us where to look
New Zealand’s pokie grant system is unusually transparent in some respects. Grant-making data is publicly available, as are charity and incorporated society records, financial accounts and information about gambling venues.
Yet these datasets largely sit in separate places.
Frame’s own analysis has found a range of indicators that could be used to identify organisations requiring additional scrutiny.
These include:
- organisations with three or fewer trustees;
- newly established organisations receiving multiple grants;
- organisations receiving unusually frequent grants from the same grant-maker;
- gaps or inconsistencies in financial documentation;
- organisations that have changed names;
- registered addresses that are private dwellings or gambling venues;
- organisations sharing addresses or principals with other flagged organisations;
- relationships between an organisation’s principals and gambling venues or operators; and
- organisations heavily dependent on a single pokie funder.
None of these indicators proves wrongdoing.
That is precisely the point.
They are risk indicators that could allow a grant-maker or regulator to ask better questions before money is distributed — rather than discovering problems after millions of dollars have been paid out.
Frame has been using publicly available data to do exactly this kind of analysis for years, including benchmarking organisations against one another and examining relationships between grant recipients, grant-makers and venues. More recently, this has included building a database of venue ownership and company relationships because the information required to assess those relationships is not readily available in one place.
We shouldn’t need to be detectives
“The frustrating thing is that much of this isn’t particularly sophisticated,” says Frame.
“With a decent database and some sensible rules, you can identify organisations that look unusual and then have a human look at them.
“You don’t need to accuse anyone of anything. You simply need to ask: is this normal?”
That is particularly important in a system distributing hundreds of millions of dollars.
In 2025, Class 4 operators distributed approximately $340 million to New Zealand community organisations, while Government received around $300 million in gambling taxes and duties. There were more than 42,000 grant applications involving approximately 9,700 organisations.
At that scale, relying primarily on manual assessment and complaints is not an efficient risk-management strategy.
Prevention is cheaper than investigation
Operation Indago demonstrates the potential consequences of discovering problems late.
The investigation involved six organisations, 23 defendants and more than 500 charges. DIA describes it as its largest-ever prosecution.
The cost is not simply the $3.2 million allegedly obtained improperly.
There is the cost of investigation, prosecution and court processes. There is the regulatory time involved. And, most importantly, there is the opportunity cost to the communities that could otherwise have received the money.
“We shouldn’t measure the cost of fraud only by the amount that was taken,” says Frame. “We should also ask what it costs us to discover it after the event.”
A relatively modest investment in proactive data analysis could therefore pay for itself many times over.
The pokie system actually has some things going for it
This is not an argument for dismantling pokie funding.
In fact, one of the things that stands out from Frame’s analysis is that pokie grant-making has some significant advantages over other parts of New Zealand’s grant ecosystem.
It is relatively fast, reaches a very broad range of community organisations, has relatively simple application processes and operates with a high-trust model.
Those are worth preserving.
The problem is that high trust needs good risk management sitting underneath it.
Frame estimates the wider New Zealand grant-making ecosystem costs around $260 million a year. The objective should therefore be to improve integrity without simply adding another layer of administration to a system that already performs relatively efficiently.
From reactive enforcement to proactive risk management
The answer is not necessarily more people reading more applications.
It is better information.
A national risk-monitoring framework could bring together existing information about:
- grant applications and payments;
- organisations and their governance;
- charity and incorporated society records;
- financial information;
- venue ownership;
- relationships between people and organisations; and
- historical grant-making patterns.
This could generate risk flags for further human review.
It could also allow grant-makers to benchmark recipients against comparable organisations.
That matters because a grant isn’t necessarily suspicious simply because it is large.
It may become interesting when it is large relative to the size, activity, income or characteristics of the organisation receiving it.
That is an area where benchmarking can be particularly useful.
Frame has previously used this approach to examine grant funding across sports and community organisations, including comparing grant funding with measures such as membership, activity and income.
An opportunity to modernise the system
The current investigation provides an opportunity to move beyond a cycle of complaint, investigation and prosecution.
There are three practical changes that could make a difference:
1. Introduce risk-based monitoring
Use existing grant, charity, company and venue data to identify unusual patterns and relationships for further review.
2. Improve information sharing
Create a more complete picture of organisations, people, grant-makers and venues rather than assessing each grant application in isolation.
3. Introduce independent oversight where significant concerns arise
Where credible concerns are raised about a grant-making process, an independent observer could provide additional assurance around proceeds committee decision-making.
These measures could strengthen the system without turning every grant application into a compliance exercise.
Protecting the money — and the system
New Zealand has effectively created a very large community funding mechanism through the gambling system.
The public has a legitimate interest in knowing that the money is going where it is intended, that grant-makers are making sound decisions and that organisations receiving funding are operating appropriately.
“The majority of pokie funding goes to legitimate community organisations doing good work,” says Frame.
“That’s exactly why we should be serious about protecting the system from the people who want to exploit it.”
Operation Indago shows that enforcement can find serious problems. The next step is making sure we get better at finding the warning signs before we need Operation Indago.
ENDS
- Published on
We Care Community Trust are relatively new in the pokie game. They gave their very first grant in 2021 and last year gave away over $5m. They have a financial year end that corresponds with the calendar year end (31 Dec).
This growth has come from site acquisition. At the end of every year I download data ex DIA which shows which pokie has which venue. I then track the changes - including ownership of the specific venues. When writing this I also looked at We Care's website and see there are 15 venues! So that’s big growth in 2026: I’d expect to see over $7m granted in 2026. Also remember that site acquisition happens over the year. Note also that this growth comes at the expense of other pokies (Grassroots and Lion in particular): most councils have a sinking lid on pokies, which means there is very little opportunity for new venues in the system. Shout out if you want some guidance on this.
|
Year |
Number of Venues |
Location of Venues |
|
2021 |
1 venue |
Bay of Plenty (1) |
|
2022 |
5 venues |
Auckland (1), Taranaki (1), Waikato (incl Thames) (1), Bay of Plenty (2) |
|
2023 |
7 venues |
Auckland (1), Taranaki (1), Waikato (incl Thames) (2), Bay of Plenty (3) |
|
2024 |
9 venues |
Auckland (2), Taranaki (1), Waikato (incl Thames) (2), Bay of Plenty (4) |
|
2025 |
10 venues |
Auckland (2) Hawkes’ Bay (1), Taranaki (1), Waikato (incl Thames) (2), Bay of Plenty (4) |
|
2026 |
15 venues (source: current website) |
Auckland (4) Hawkes’ Bay (1), Taranaki (1), Waikato (incl Thames) (3), Bay of Plenty (5), Manawatu (1) |
Its interesting to compare where the money comes from and where it ends up. Of course not all venues are the same: some produce large amounts of potential grants while others are less utilised. If I look back to the 2025 system review I can see that We Care has a $32.8k productivity, which means that every machine in their network produces $32.8k of grants. This compares well to the average of $29.3k – although somewhat shy of the most productive grant generator, Trillian at $43.2k per machine.
They do state on their website that they want the grants to go back into the regions that generated them. Some councils, particularly the smaller ones, have identified that grant money can flow out of their region. Indeed I have written on this before.
The chart below compares the actual grants given to specific regions the grant seeking entities are located to the amount that theoretically generated by those machines in the region, scaled back for the grants made to National bodies. I have used the average We Care productivity to drive the theoretical number. The actual grants per venue are not published: that would be commercially sensitive information. What the chart shows is that Auckland does pretty well. BoP looks ok, but Taranaki and Waikato could do better. My hot take for grant seekers in Taranaki and Waikato is to apply for grants from this outfit. You need to be sure to get your fair share.
They do state on their website that they want the grants to go back into the regions that generated them. Some councils, particularly the smaller ones, have identified that grant money can flow out of their region. Indeed I have written on this before.
The chart below compares the actual grants given to specific regions the grant seeking entities are located to the amount that theoretically generated by those machines in the region, scaled back for the grants made to National bodies. I have used the average We Care productivity to drive the theoretical number. The actual grants per venue are not published: that would be commercially sensitive information. What the chart shows is that Auckland does pretty well. BoP looks ok, but Taranaki and Waikato could do better. My hot take for grant seekers in Taranaki and Waikato is to apply for grants from this outfit. You need to be sure to get your fair share.
On paper they have a fairly wide remit. From their website: We Care may make grants for:
- Amateur sport
- Youth development
- Health and Welfare
- Arts and Culture
- Community Support
- New Immigrants
If we really get into the weeds we can see some big licks of cash driving the above charts. Below is a table showing the top fifteen recipients over all years and the number of grants received.
Ambulance services are getting large amounts of grants from We Care getting 16% of total grants given since We Care started making grants. Unfortunately they don’t disclose why various entities are getting grants: I would suspect its capital for ambulances. I also find it pretty sad that Waipuna Hospice is so high on the list: I suspect this reflects the (somewhat broken) model of health funding.
The New Zealand Sikh Community Tauranga Trust received $750k in 9 grants last year. Latest accounts for this entity are not yet published, but this amount is higher than their annual income since inception, so I assume its capex.
Those who follow me know that there are a few flags I have around grant making. This isn’t to say that the existence of any of these factors is a red flag (well, with the exception of point f) but with a combination of a couple then I’d suggest those with the power to investigate do their job.
Do Good Charitable trust, a Rotorua based entity established November 2023 with one trustee. Received $255,916 so far in 7 grants.
New Zealand Education & Creation Centre, an Auckland based entity established in June 2024 with two trustees: received $209,800 so far in 10 grants. Most of this money I guess went to their rent: $154k in the first published year.
I have then asked AI who the Trustees are and if they are related to each other. Based on that answer it’s a family business. A while ago I did pose this question to DIA who came back and said they have no concerns about this. So its cool by the regulator, but what do you think? How should we judge stewardship over grant funding by pokies? I guess family foundations are all about the nepotism, but is that appropriate for pokies?
I write about this stuff as believe that as need to understand where funding comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there. These pokies have considerable stewardship over community funding. As a citizenry we allow both those supplying money and those asking for money to operate, and as a community we need to ensure we have oversight over the organisations they choose to fund: are they operating efficiently? Are they leveraging best practice? Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting, and if you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
The New Zealand Sikh Community Tauranga Trust received $750k in 9 grants last year. Latest accounts for this entity are not yet published, but this amount is higher than their annual income since inception, so I assume its capex.
Those who follow me know that there are a few flags I have around grant making. This isn’t to say that the existence of any of these factors is a red flag (well, with the exception of point f) but with a combination of a couple then I’d suggest those with the power to investigate do their job.
- Charities with three or fewer trustees
- NGOs registered in the past 24 months
- NGOs with more than 2 grants from a single pokie in a year
- NGO with name changes
- NGO with registered address of private dwelling and rent as expense
- NGO with registered address of Class 4 venue and rent as expense
- NGO with principal associated with a venue or a pokie
- NGO has income from any one pokie at more than 50% of total income
Do Good Charitable trust, a Rotorua based entity established November 2023 with one trustee. Received $255,916 so far in 7 grants.
New Zealand Education & Creation Centre, an Auckland based entity established in June 2024 with two trustees: received $209,800 so far in 10 grants. Most of this money I guess went to their rent: $154k in the first published year.
I have then asked AI who the Trustees are and if they are related to each other. Based on that answer it’s a family business. A while ago I did pose this question to DIA who came back and said they have no concerns about this. So its cool by the regulator, but what do you think? How should we judge stewardship over grant funding by pokies? I guess family foundations are all about the nepotism, but is that appropriate for pokies?
I write about this stuff as believe that as need to understand where funding comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there. These pokies have considerable stewardship over community funding. As a citizenry we allow both those supplying money and those asking for money to operate, and as a community we need to ensure we have oversight over the organisations they choose to fund: are they operating efficiently? Are they leveraging best practice? Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting, and if you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
- Published on
I last looked at these chaps two years ago. That sparked an article by Steve Kilgallon at Stuff. Funnily enough the blog's opening paragraph still holds: “A healthy dose of media and too much time on my hands has sparked up this interest again in grant money: where it comes from, where it goes to have how it gets there”. I may also have been gently nudged into this direction.
They are a pretty small but growing pokie: as at the end of 2023 they had six venues, but by the end of 2025 there were nine venues under their management, five in Auckland and one a piece in Hauraki, Hamilton, New Plymouth and Whangarei. i had thought of throwing in a chart from Granted showing where the grants end up, but to be honest the data is not looking all that clean. On first blush, in 2025 84% of grants ended up in Auckland.
Here’s a wee chart showing the growth in grants made over the past 10 years. While they are not a big grant maker they are certainly on an upwards trajectory based on venue growth. Last financial year (1 April to 31 March) they picked up two venues off Grassroots and one off Pelorus. What this means is that now both of those pokies have fewer grants to give. (Note I look at data on a financial year basis, while Granted.govt.nz looks at it by the calendar. I do this as have to rely on publicly available information rather than regulatory mandate).
They are a pretty small but growing pokie: as at the end of 2023 they had six venues, but by the end of 2025 there were nine venues under their management, five in Auckland and one a piece in Hauraki, Hamilton, New Plymouth and Whangarei. i had thought of throwing in a chart from Granted showing where the grants end up, but to be honest the data is not looking all that clean. On first blush, in 2025 84% of grants ended up in Auckland.
Here’s a wee chart showing the growth in grants made over the past 10 years. While they are not a big grant maker they are certainly on an upwards trajectory based on venue growth. Last financial year (1 April to 31 March) they picked up two venues off Grassroots and one off Pelorus. What this means is that now both of those pokies have fewer grants to give. (Note I look at data on a financial year basis, while Granted.govt.nz looks at it by the calendar. I do this as have to rely on publicly available information rather than regulatory mandate).
On paper they have a fairly wide remit. From their website: Akarana may make grants for:
- any charitable purpose;
- any non-commercial purpose that is beneficial to the whole or a section of the community; and
- promoting, controlling, and conducting race meetings under the Racing Act 2003, including the payment of stakes.
|
Org |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
2026 |
Total |
Count |
|
Auckland Netball Centre Inc |
$30.0k |
$38.9k |
$34.4k |
$54.3k |
$59.2k |
$70.5k |
$46.3k |
$333.7k |
51 |
|
Bay of Plenty Sikh Society NZ Trust |
0 |
$25.0k |
$350.3k |
$234.0k |
0 |
$80.2k |
$95.1k |
$784.7k |
29 |
|
Chinese Senior People Help Centre |
$200.0k |
$202.9k |
$85.2k |
$20.6k |
$64.5k |
$68.9k |
$125.6k |
$767.6k |
35 |
|
Good Care Community Trust |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$208.0k |
$484.3k |
$692.4k |
22 |
|
New Zealand Punjabi Multimedia Trust Board |
$14.7k |
$6.7k |
$4.4k |
$13.3k |
$29.0k |
$112.1k |
$259.3k |
$439.5k |
32 |
|
New Zealand Sports & Community Development Trust |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$312.5k |
0 |
0 |
$312.5k |
4 |
|
Roopa Aur Aap Charitable Trust |
$165.4k |
$134.5k |
$96.5k |
$200.3k |
$164.7k |
$139.4k |
$60.6k |
$961.5k |
48 |
|
Sikh Heritage School |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$60.3k |
$196.3k |
$134k |
0 |
$390.6k |
15 |
|
Supreme Sikh Society of NZ |
$1,226.1k |
$1,114.5k |
$1,111.5k |
$1,744.5k |
$1,479.0k |
$1,275.6k |
$1,450.6k |
$9,401.9k |
228 |
|
Surf Life Saving Northern Region |
$89.2k |
$61.5k |
$69.0k |
$138.7k |
$147.1k |
$126.2k |
$158.1k |
$789.8k |
52 |
|
Te Karere Community Trust |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$67.1k |
$348.1k |
$415.2k |
18 |
|
Woman Care Trust |
$210.0k |
$289.3k |
$275.4k |
$459.6k |
$394.2k |
$434.1k |
$474.6k |
$2,537.1k |
84 |
|
Other |
$826.7k |
$480.5k |
$350.5k |
$1,071.8k |
$1,087.2k |
$802.7k |
$1576k |
$6,195.4k |
693 |
|
Grand Total |
$2,762k |
$2,354k |
$2,377k |
$3,998k |
$3,933k |
$3,519k |
$5,079k |
$24,022k |
1,311 |
We can see that Supreme Sikh received 39% of the available grant money from Akarana in the past seven years, in 228 successful grants. I find it wild that every year Akarana makes around 2.7 grants per month to this organisation. Now grant making like this is not unknown: rugby clubs have similar arrangements with other pokies: a practice I think is a little off but hey seems ok by the regulator. The amount of paperwork required to fulfil the accountability requirements must be confusing.
We can also see a few regular favourites: Woman Care Trust gets a grant a month from this operator, and Roopa Aur Aap Charitable Trust gets a regular amount too. Woman Care is quite interesting: if you look at their accounts the Trustees are on the payroll, with one of them and an ex trustee paid over $100k each in the last financial year. Akarana have declarations of conflicts with Roopa Aur Aap and Surf Lifesaving Northern.
However there is a new favourite for 2026, and one, if I were the regulator, I would have a look at: Good Care Community Trust. They registered as a charity in July 2024 and seem to have developed services as a food bank and school breakfast programme. To be honest I’m a little unsettled by their client photos on their site, and am wondering about the quality of the food parcels they send people away with: is this best practice? And how do the costs look to you? Check that out on Charities.govt.nz; they only have their first year of accounts up at this stage. Accounts prepared by Manakau Consultants Ltd shows income of $209k and expenditure of $179k, mostly on salaries ($94k) but a nice $30k surplus. They also bought a new iPhone and 2 new laptops. The next lot of accounts will likely be more interesting: hopefully they will disclose how many people they are helping and who is getting those salaries: after all the amounts granted from Akarana has doubled (and according to Granted Blue Sky put in $140k in 2025 as well).
This is partly why I advocate for benchmarking in this space. On the face of it yep there is community benefit: a number of schools have written letters of support. Yet how do these costs compare to others who operate in this space? If you unbundled the costs of the programmes and said to the schools that you can have the programme or the (say) $30,000 that it costs to provide this directly, what would be the answer?
Te Karere looks interesting too in that I can’t find it. Not on the Charities Register. And nothing on Gemini to speak of (except for a reference back to funding, an ad for two graphic designers paying between $37.3k and $49.8k (minimum wage) and one of my blogs. There is a Trust Deed on the Companies Office which suggests they are “a community newspaper is to inform and engage the local community with news, events, and issues that are relevant to them.” Given the amount of money given to them by Akarana (and Constellation Community Trust who have given them $110k last calendar year) over the past two years one hopes they have managed to pull this off: if they have then its possible they have done this under a different entity. Let me know if you can find them: they will not be the TV show that's on TVNZ at 4pm weekdays.
Another interesting one is New Zealand Sports & Community Development Trust (NZSCD), established in 2023. Crickets in grants from Akarana since the Stuff article above. So they are now not worth funding? Looking at Granted provides the answer (once I clean the data: there are three separate entries for this entity). Luckily for NZSCD, Milestone, Rano and Blue Sky think that yes they are worth funding. Based on their published services last financial year, they had 575 classes and 2% of their income comes from membership fees. Total grants = $765,603. That means a community subsidy per class of $1,331. I’m not familiar with the business model around community gyms, but again, some benchmarking to understand how this compares to others in this space would be pretty illuminating.
I write about this stuff as believe that as need to understand where funding comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there. These pokies have considerable stewardship over community funding. As a citizenry we allow both those supplying money and those asking for money to operate, and as a community we need to ensure we have oversight over the organisations they choose to fund: are they operating efficiently? Are they leveraging best practice? Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting, and if you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
We can also see a few regular favourites: Woman Care Trust gets a grant a month from this operator, and Roopa Aur Aap Charitable Trust gets a regular amount too. Woman Care is quite interesting: if you look at their accounts the Trustees are on the payroll, with one of them and an ex trustee paid over $100k each in the last financial year. Akarana have declarations of conflicts with Roopa Aur Aap and Surf Lifesaving Northern.
However there is a new favourite for 2026, and one, if I were the regulator, I would have a look at: Good Care Community Trust. They registered as a charity in July 2024 and seem to have developed services as a food bank and school breakfast programme. To be honest I’m a little unsettled by their client photos on their site, and am wondering about the quality of the food parcels they send people away with: is this best practice? And how do the costs look to you? Check that out on Charities.govt.nz; they only have their first year of accounts up at this stage. Accounts prepared by Manakau Consultants Ltd shows income of $209k and expenditure of $179k, mostly on salaries ($94k) but a nice $30k surplus. They also bought a new iPhone and 2 new laptops. The next lot of accounts will likely be more interesting: hopefully they will disclose how many people they are helping and who is getting those salaries: after all the amounts granted from Akarana has doubled (and according to Granted Blue Sky put in $140k in 2025 as well).
This is partly why I advocate for benchmarking in this space. On the face of it yep there is community benefit: a number of schools have written letters of support. Yet how do these costs compare to others who operate in this space? If you unbundled the costs of the programmes and said to the schools that you can have the programme or the (say) $30,000 that it costs to provide this directly, what would be the answer?
Te Karere looks interesting too in that I can’t find it. Not on the Charities Register. And nothing on Gemini to speak of (except for a reference back to funding, an ad for two graphic designers paying between $37.3k and $49.8k (minimum wage) and one of my blogs. There is a Trust Deed on the Companies Office which suggests they are “a community newspaper is to inform and engage the local community with news, events, and issues that are relevant to them.” Given the amount of money given to them by Akarana (and Constellation Community Trust who have given them $110k last calendar year) over the past two years one hopes they have managed to pull this off: if they have then its possible they have done this under a different entity. Let me know if you can find them: they will not be the TV show that's on TVNZ at 4pm weekdays.
Another interesting one is New Zealand Sports & Community Development Trust (NZSCD), established in 2023. Crickets in grants from Akarana since the Stuff article above. So they are now not worth funding? Looking at Granted provides the answer (once I clean the data: there are three separate entries for this entity). Luckily for NZSCD, Milestone, Rano and Blue Sky think that yes they are worth funding. Based on their published services last financial year, they had 575 classes and 2% of their income comes from membership fees. Total grants = $765,603. That means a community subsidy per class of $1,331. I’m not familiar with the business model around community gyms, but again, some benchmarking to understand how this compares to others in this space would be pretty illuminating.
I write about this stuff as believe that as need to understand where funding comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there. These pokies have considerable stewardship over community funding. As a citizenry we allow both those supplying money and those asking for money to operate, and as a community we need to ensure we have oversight over the organisations they choose to fund: are they operating efficiently? Are they leveraging best practice? Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting, and if you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
- Published on
DIA have published the 2025 Class 4 grants data. This covers all the grants made in the 2025 calendar year by Class 4 societies: pokies. You will no doubt have had a good look at what the data is telling you.
But if not, then lets have a look now. All this information can be found at Granted.govt.nz.
Below is a shot of the dashboard on the first page.
But if not, then lets have a look now. All this information can be found at Granted.govt.nz.
Below is a shot of the dashboard on the first page.
We have 9,420 organisations receiving these grants, with each organisation receiving an average of almost 2.75 grants per year from 33 separate grantmakers. HOWEVER looking at the data, unlike last year (but like years prior) the data isn’t clean. For some grantseekers we have multiple entries: I would suspect that the real number of organisations getting grants will be similar to last years 8.9k. If you are using Granted at the moment you may strike some challenges here: trick for young players.
So who got all this lovely money? Below is a table looking at the top twenty organisations receiving money, along with information on who the largest funder is for that particular grant seeking entity with the percentage that funder gives to the grant seeker. (Note: I’ve eyeballed the grant seekers to account for dirty data so my results may differ from the website). Some you will know, some aren’t actually legal entities so we have no idea what the spend is for, some you’ll have to google, and some I have complained about several years ago. So clearly nothing to see here.
So who got all this lovely money? Below is a table looking at the top twenty organisations receiving money, along with information on who the largest funder is for that particular grant seeking entity with the percentage that funder gives to the grant seeker. (Note: I’ve eyeballed the grant seekers to account for dirty data so my results may differ from the website). Some you will know, some aren’t actually legal entities so we have no idea what the spend is for, some you’ll have to google, and some I have complained about several years ago. So clearly nothing to see here.
You may be surprised that there are 33 grantmakers in this sector. Below is a wee chart looking at who they are, how much they have given away in the calendar years, and how many machines they have as at 31 December.
During the 2025 year we have lost one grant maker: Blue Waters Community Trust. Their single venue seems to have shut its doors. Looks like Auckland’s lawn bowls clubs will miss them the most: looking at the last five years of grants we can see 74% of their grants have gone to Bowls clubs. ILT's look strange: they have the same number of machines – which isn’t surprising given they are a licensing trust – but the amount of grants in the 2025 year has dropped by about $1.3m. Looking at their annual accounts for the ILT Foundation who runs the pokies (financial year end 31 March) I can see there is a $500k drop so suspect some of this being reporting is timing but the reduction is still puzzling.
You can see there is a column called 2025 Productivity. This is a measure of my own invention: it looks at the dollar grants given and divides by the number of machines it takes to produce that grant income. To some extent it’s a measure of network: how urban or well used the pokie venues are. Ignoring the smaller organisations whose results may well be skewed by timings, Trillian’s are most productive with each machine in their network producing $43k for community groups. Youthtown’s are the least productive, with each machine producing only $17k per machine. The average pokie machine produces a tidy $29k to community groups. If you are interested in this you can see the machine and venue data on DIA’s website – or get in touch as I capture this annually.
We can also see that the number of machines in NZ is down by just over 100. This is driven by 14 venues closing or getting rid of their pokies: we are down to 803 venues as at the end of 2025. Of course many councils have shrinking lid policies on pokie venues. The amount granted in 2025 compared to 2024 has dropped by about $5m: whether this is driven by reduced network, competition from online or by less disposable income by pokie players remains to be seen. I recall a few years ago I determined that a reduced network didn't make much difference to the amounts granted, but things have changed a little since then.
If you are interested in the pokies that operate in your region and the sorts of groups they fund you can easily look at that through Granted. Local Canterbury grant seekers may be interested to see that Rano has now left the region, with that site now a Youthtown one.
I write about this stuff as believe that as need to understand where funding comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there. These 33 (now 32) entities have considerable stewardship over community funding. As a citizenry we allow both those supplying money and those asking for money to operate, and as a community we need to ensure we have oversight over the organisations they choose to fund. Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting, and if you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
You can see there is a column called 2025 Productivity. This is a measure of my own invention: it looks at the dollar grants given and divides by the number of machines it takes to produce that grant income. To some extent it’s a measure of network: how urban or well used the pokie venues are. Ignoring the smaller organisations whose results may well be skewed by timings, Trillian’s are most productive with each machine in their network producing $43k for community groups. Youthtown’s are the least productive, with each machine producing only $17k per machine. The average pokie machine produces a tidy $29k to community groups. If you are interested in this you can see the machine and venue data on DIA’s website – or get in touch as I capture this annually.
We can also see that the number of machines in NZ is down by just over 100. This is driven by 14 venues closing or getting rid of their pokies: we are down to 803 venues as at the end of 2025. Of course many councils have shrinking lid policies on pokie venues. The amount granted in 2025 compared to 2024 has dropped by about $5m: whether this is driven by reduced network, competition from online or by less disposable income by pokie players remains to be seen. I recall a few years ago I determined that a reduced network didn't make much difference to the amounts granted, but things have changed a little since then.
If you are interested in the pokies that operate in your region and the sorts of groups they fund you can easily look at that through Granted. Local Canterbury grant seekers may be interested to see that Rano has now left the region, with that site now a Youthtown one.
I write about this stuff as believe that as need to understand where funding comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there. These 33 (now 32) entities have considerable stewardship over community funding. As a citizenry we allow both those supplying money and those asking for money to operate, and as a community we need to ensure we have oversight over the organisations they choose to fund. Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting, and if you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
- Published on
The other day I was reviewing an old blog Akarana Community Trust where I had noted a new player: New Horizons. I thought it might be worth having a further look now that they were established and we had some data on them.
New Horizons was registered as a company in July 2022 with three directors and two shareholders: one at 90%. They are now providing services to Auckland two venues (as at 31 December 2025): Counties Inn and Tuis Clubrooms, both owned by the same chap.
New Horizon's authorised purposes are copied below from their website:
The authorised purposes of New Horizon Community Trust encompass a broad range of initiatives aimed at enhancing community well-being and support.
New Horizon Community Trust supports a wide array of community initiatives. We fund local amateur sports, especially minority sports, youth programs, elderly support services, and public health projects.
Additionally, we provide grants for cultural and arts festivals, environmental conservation, climate change initiatives, and projects promoting Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles. Our funding also assists the Rainbow community, recent immigrants, and organizations fostering community cultural education and cohesion. Through these diverse funding areas, we aim to enhance community well-being and inclusivity.
Note some pokies do have restrictions on the frequency that organisations can come back to the pokie for further funding. This entity doesn’t seem to have that restriction.
They are getting the money out the door – which is really the job. In the 18 months that grant distributions have been published they have given away just over $2m. There were no declarations of interest made by the Net Proceeds Committee.
In 2025 they:
But, as regular readers know, I like to poke around a little. Below is a pivot showing the top ten recipients of grants from this pokie. Over 80% of the grant funds have gone to the below organisations.
New Horizons was registered as a company in July 2022 with three directors and two shareholders: one at 90%. They are now providing services to Auckland two venues (as at 31 December 2025): Counties Inn and Tuis Clubrooms, both owned by the same chap.
New Horizon's authorised purposes are copied below from their website:
The authorised purposes of New Horizon Community Trust encompass a broad range of initiatives aimed at enhancing community well-being and support.
New Horizon Community Trust supports a wide array of community initiatives. We fund local amateur sports, especially minority sports, youth programs, elderly support services, and public health projects.
Additionally, we provide grants for cultural and arts festivals, environmental conservation, climate change initiatives, and projects promoting Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles. Our funding also assists the Rainbow community, recent immigrants, and organizations fostering community cultural education and cohesion. Through these diverse funding areas, we aim to enhance community well-being and inclusivity.
Note some pokies do have restrictions on the frequency that organisations can come back to the pokie for further funding. This entity doesn’t seem to have that restriction.
They are getting the money out the door – which is really the job. In the 18 months that grant distributions have been published they have given away just over $2m. There were no declarations of interest made by the Net Proceeds Committee.
In 2025 they:
- gave away $1.172m in 55 grants
- declined 18 grants
- Gave away $852k in 49 grants
- Declined 14 grants
But, as regular readers know, I like to poke around a little. Below is a pivot showing the top ten recipients of grants from this pokie. Over 80% of the grant funds have gone to the below organisations.
A few numbers stand out here. The Institute of Sikh Studies was registered as a charity on 6 May 2024. And my word they’ve been most successful in attracting funding from this organisation. They already received $364k of grant funding in a total of 12 grant applications in these 18 months of pokie disclosure. If we look at the latest published accounts (31 March 2025) of this charity we have $49k in salaries, and a $15k in consulting and accounting. Granted.govt.nz hasn’t got the 2025 data in yet: but in 2024 New Horizons were the only pokie to fund this organisation. Now, not saying that anything is off here: it could be that these this pokie is helping organisations to start up, but if I were in charge I would have hard look at this. What set this entity apart of the multitude of others to get such support in start up phase?
We can also see $423k going to Sikh Heritage School in14 applications, and $218k to the Supreme Sikh Society in 10 applications.
Interestingly, although it hasn’t made the top 10, I did note a grant of $15k made to Waikato Women’s Advancement on 3 June 2025. It struck me as odd given, I am guessing based on the clue in the name, that its Waikato based. More interesting as its now been deregistered (March 2026) and has filed a zero return for the past three years. This charity was well funded by Blue Sky and Dragon late last decade (my database suggests to the tune of $333k) but they fell of the funders' dance card in 2019 and 2020 with a bunch of declined applications. So I’m unsure what that’s about.
If anyone is interested in having a look at the database I’ve pulled together please let me know. Its all publicly available data, but just assembled in a manner that makes it easier to interrogate.
I write about this stuff as I believe that we need to understand where funding comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there. In the greater scheme of things its rounding, but for many organisations surviving and doing great mahi it’s a lot of money. Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting, and if you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
We can also see $423k going to Sikh Heritage School in14 applications, and $218k to the Supreme Sikh Society in 10 applications.
Interestingly, although it hasn’t made the top 10, I did note a grant of $15k made to Waikato Women’s Advancement on 3 June 2025. It struck me as odd given, I am guessing based on the clue in the name, that its Waikato based. More interesting as its now been deregistered (March 2026) and has filed a zero return for the past three years. This charity was well funded by Blue Sky and Dragon late last decade (my database suggests to the tune of $333k) but they fell of the funders' dance card in 2019 and 2020 with a bunch of declined applications. So I’m unsure what that’s about.
If anyone is interested in having a look at the database I’ve pulled together please let me know. Its all publicly available data, but just assembled in a manner that makes it easier to interrogate.
I write about this stuff as I believe that we need to understand where funding comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there. In the greater scheme of things its rounding, but for many organisations surviving and doing great mahi it’s a lot of money. Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting, and if you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
- Published on
I’ve always thought the best crimes are the ones where people don’t realise they’re being robbed. Take the One Cent Thief back in the early ’90s, quietly rounding fractions of cents from bank accounts into his own. As a banker he was a part of the system and could see the lack of oversight and the opportunity. Clever enough until he started living well beyond his means and attracted attention. The eyes of the risk people would have been focused on the big bucks elsewhere.
Lets face it: money and talk about money is pretty pretty dull. In the community space that’s why so many charities focus on story telling: a better way to capture hearts and minds. But if we look at this as an opportunity through a risk lens then perhaps there are some opportunities for those with inclination. Community groups themselves are susceptible to fraud within themselves as entities: we see stories like this all the time, although many likely remain quiet in order to protect the brand and retain the confidence of funders and communities. But often they come to light via governance or audits. So lets look in places where there is no oversight and large amounts of cash.
Now, to be clear, what follows is a fictional scenario. I have no direct evidence that anything like this is happening. But I do think the community funding model relies heavily on trust, and I’m not convinced the risks are particularly well managed, mitigated or monitored.
So let’s imagine I’m a moderately dishonest person.
First, I set up a charity with an associate as a second trustee and a fairly boring name. I’d probably pick someone with a different surname just to avoid making life too easy for anyone trying to connect the dots. We put together some grant applications and get to work. I keep it small enough so I am not required to have an audit.
I start writing grant applications and ask for rent.
Most charities operate out of somebody’s home. That’s completely normal. What’s less normal is claiming substantial amounts of funding to cover that “rent”. Yet imagine a charity applying for, say, $80,000 a year in grant funding under that heading.
Does your PTA invoice itself for using the dining room table? Does your local football club charge itself for keeping records in someone’s spare bedroom? Of course not.
But if you were inclined, there’s money sitting on the table.
Next application: salaries.
Many charities have no paid staff at all. According to Gemini AI, only 15% of New Zealand charities employ people. So imagine creating yourself a reasonably well-paid job, keeping the paperwork tidy, and collecting the salary. Better still, do a little genuine work. Run a class once a week. Hold some events. Maintain social media. Have real stakeholders. That way, anyone looking from the outside can see that the charity exists and does stuff.
The problem is that very few people ask whether the costs are reasonable, and those who know the truth are in the tent.
Maybe those weekly classes cost ten times what similar organisations spend. Maybe the salary is far higher than comparable roles elsewhere. We don’t tend to benchmark charities against one another (my day job was benchmarking), so inflated costs can hide in plain sight. And keep moving: close it down every few years and start a new one.
So far, so good. But how would this actually work?
That’s where you’d need some willing partners.
Partner One: the pokie provider
Not every pokie provider would entertain this sort of thing. Most wouldn’t. But if I were looking to exploit a potential hole in our systems, I’d be interested in trusts that display certain patterns:
None of these attributes prove wrongdoing. But if I were looking for a partner these may some behaviours I’d look for.
Partner Two: the venue
Technically, venues aren’t supposed to influence where grant money goes. In practice, however, there are plenty of examples where a venue changes gaming trust providers and, before long, a particular charity starts receiving funding from the new operator.
Sometimes the relationships are even closer. In one prosecuted case the venue owner was also the recipient of grant money. This came to light thanks to a whistle blower.
In fact, I reckon the venue could do a deal with the pokie operator to get a kick back from the grant money. Based on a database I developed a while ago I can see three trusts where their registered address is a pokie venue.
If I were imagining ways to skim money from the system, I might arrange for a venue to charge a charity rent. Or perhaps negotiate some sort of kickback arrangement linked to grant funding. As a legitimate charity or incorporated society if you’re receiving 90% of something you weren’t getting before, perhaps that’s still an attractive proposition.
The bigger question is this: who would notice?
That’s the uncomfortable part.
The system relies heavily on whistleblowers. Our systems are pretty high trust. Regulatory investigations are expensive, time-consuming, and relatively rare. Most people applying for grants are focused on their own organisation’s finances. They apply, they get funded or declined, and they move on. Based on my experience with the regulator, they want the smoking gun wrapped up in a big bow. Things that look off, or are a bit sniffy, seldom get a look in.
Because the money belongs to “the community”, nobody feels personally robbed when it is misallocated. The perfect crime.
Sadly, I’m far too honest to live like this and would likely break out in a huge rash as the required behaviours wouldn't align with my values. I would rather focus on actively managing this risk. Here’s two options:
Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting. If you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
Lets face it: money and talk about money is pretty pretty dull. In the community space that’s why so many charities focus on story telling: a better way to capture hearts and minds. But if we look at this as an opportunity through a risk lens then perhaps there are some opportunities for those with inclination. Community groups themselves are susceptible to fraud within themselves as entities: we see stories like this all the time, although many likely remain quiet in order to protect the brand and retain the confidence of funders and communities. But often they come to light via governance or audits. So lets look in places where there is no oversight and large amounts of cash.
Now, to be clear, what follows is a fictional scenario. I have no direct evidence that anything like this is happening. But I do think the community funding model relies heavily on trust, and I’m not convinced the risks are particularly well managed, mitigated or monitored.
So let’s imagine I’m a moderately dishonest person.
First, I set up a charity with an associate as a second trustee and a fairly boring name. I’d probably pick someone with a different surname just to avoid making life too easy for anyone trying to connect the dots. We put together some grant applications and get to work. I keep it small enough so I am not required to have an audit.
I start writing grant applications and ask for rent.
Most charities operate out of somebody’s home. That’s completely normal. What’s less normal is claiming substantial amounts of funding to cover that “rent”. Yet imagine a charity applying for, say, $80,000 a year in grant funding under that heading.
Does your PTA invoice itself for using the dining room table? Does your local football club charge itself for keeping records in someone’s spare bedroom? Of course not.
But if you were inclined, there’s money sitting on the table.
Next application: salaries.
Many charities have no paid staff at all. According to Gemini AI, only 15% of New Zealand charities employ people. So imagine creating yourself a reasonably well-paid job, keeping the paperwork tidy, and collecting the salary. Better still, do a little genuine work. Run a class once a week. Hold some events. Maintain social media. Have real stakeholders. That way, anyone looking from the outside can see that the charity exists and does stuff.
The problem is that very few people ask whether the costs are reasonable, and those who know the truth are in the tent.
Maybe those weekly classes cost ten times what similar organisations spend. Maybe the salary is far higher than comparable roles elsewhere. We don’t tend to benchmark charities against one another (my day job was benchmarking), so inflated costs can hide in plain sight. And keep moving: close it down every few years and start a new one.
So far, so good. But how would this actually work?
That’s where you’d need some willing partners.
Partner One: the pokie provider
Not every pokie provider would entertain this sort of thing. Most wouldn’t. But if I were looking to exploit a potential hole in our systems, I’d be interested in trusts that display certain patterns:
- Multiple grants to the same organisation every year.
- Significant funding to recently established charities.
- Large grants where supporting documentation appears thin.
- Grants to organisations who get the majority of their income from a single gaming trust.
- Grants to charities with very small governance structures and limited independent oversight.
None of these attributes prove wrongdoing. But if I were looking for a partner these may some behaviours I’d look for.
Partner Two: the venue
Technically, venues aren’t supposed to influence where grant money goes. In practice, however, there are plenty of examples where a venue changes gaming trust providers and, before long, a particular charity starts receiving funding from the new operator.
Sometimes the relationships are even closer. In one prosecuted case the venue owner was also the recipient of grant money. This came to light thanks to a whistle blower.
In fact, I reckon the venue could do a deal with the pokie operator to get a kick back from the grant money. Based on a database I developed a while ago I can see three trusts where their registered address is a pokie venue.
If I were imagining ways to skim money from the system, I might arrange for a venue to charge a charity rent. Or perhaps negotiate some sort of kickback arrangement linked to grant funding. As a legitimate charity or incorporated society if you’re receiving 90% of something you weren’t getting before, perhaps that’s still an attractive proposition.
The bigger question is this: who would notice?
That’s the uncomfortable part.
The system relies heavily on whistleblowers. Our systems are pretty high trust. Regulatory investigations are expensive, time-consuming, and relatively rare. Most people applying for grants are focused on their own organisation’s finances. They apply, they get funded or declined, and they move on. Based on my experience with the regulator, they want the smoking gun wrapped up in a big bow. Things that look off, or are a bit sniffy, seldom get a look in.
Because the money belongs to “the community”, nobody feels personally robbed when it is misallocated. The perfect crime.
Sadly, I’m far too honest to live like this and would likely break out in a huge rash as the required behaviours wouldn't align with my values. I would rather focus on actively managing this risk. Here’s two options:
- Observers on grant distribution panels who have the power to bring in NZ Police where they suspect the law is not being applied. This would be relatively low cost but likely requires a tweak in the law.
- Moving all grant decisions to local organisations (as Invercargill Licensing Trust where those making decisions are voted on by residents) which reduces the potential for nefarious behaviour. This is a more structural change to this solution but it opens up an opportunity for lower costs to serve, better money to good organisations and a potential for benchmarking over time.
Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting. If you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
- Published on
I am getting pretty slack on this grant work these days. Mainly due the challenge of having a real job, and the unending relentlessness of the stuff that goes on in this space. But below is a rinse and repeat of my last look at Blue Sky, Dragon, Milestone and Rano. I reckon these are worth keeping a beady eye on given some of the things we have discovered before about charities well supported by these pokies.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360547576/charity-struck-significant-failings-after-stuff-investigation
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/130928581/the-1-million-library-that-never-really-opened-appears-to-close-for-good
I looked at these four gaming trusts in August 2022 and raised a complaint specifically about Dragon. This complaint widened to include these four. I believe its STILL ongoing based on DIA’s response in the above articles. So while those tasked with regulation go about their jobs, the pokies and community groups they fund continue to go about theirs.
Looking at their Grant distributions over the years we can see growth has plateaued and indeed fell by around 8% ($2m) in the last financial year. This is despite an increase in the number of venues under management: in 2017 they had 17 venues and 269 machines: by 30 June 2025 they had 38 venues and 587 machines. The four also have a skew for Auckland / Waikato region. If we look at the calendar year 2024 (as that’s how I manage the venue data) they lost four venues and gained four venues.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360547576/charity-struck-significant-failings-after-stuff-investigation
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/130928581/the-1-million-library-that-never-really-opened-appears-to-close-for-good
I looked at these four gaming trusts in August 2022 and raised a complaint specifically about Dragon. This complaint widened to include these four. I believe its STILL ongoing based on DIA’s response in the above articles. So while those tasked with regulation go about their jobs, the pokies and community groups they fund continue to go about theirs.
Looking at their Grant distributions over the years we can see growth has plateaued and indeed fell by around 8% ($2m) in the last financial year. This is despite an increase in the number of venues under management: in 2017 they had 17 venues and 269 machines: by 30 June 2025 they had 38 venues and 587 machines. The four also have a skew for Auckland / Waikato region. If we look at the calendar year 2024 (as that’s how I manage the venue data) they lost four venues and gained four venues.
I have developed a wee proposal which has died somewhere in the bureaucratic void (shout out if you want it), but I think would help those charged with managing our grant making systems a little more proactive. The objectives behind the proposal are:
I thought you might be interested in the top twenty community organisations that have been granted funding in the last financial year, along with the number of grants, and the date they were registered as an entity. The reason I monitor the number of grants is because I'm quite surprised at the volumes that do go through to many charities. If you have written a grant application you will know that the process, paperwork and bookkeeping can drive a girl to drink. This is why I can't help but be a wee bit suspicious of organisations that get multiple grants per month from a single funder.
You can see 20 organisations are getting 39.6% of the total grants from these pokies. Some of last year's favourites no longer make the cut: both Lucky Clover and Woman Care have basically halved in amount of grants given, down from $545k and $319k respectively.
- Better understand the linkages between venues, Class 4 organisations and charities
- Proactively manage any potential issues by actively monitoring the data of the Class 4 organisations, launching investigations when there is evidence to suggest issues
- Be comfortable that the ecosystem is channeling grant monies to “good” organisations, minimizing that to bad, and eliminating grant monies going to ugly.
- organisations with three or fewer trustees
- organisations getting more than 2 grants per annum from a grant maker
- organisations registered within the past months
- organisations with a deficit in documentation including annual accounts
- NGOs with a name change
- NGOs with a registered address of a private dwelling and a charge of rent expense in their accounts
- NGOs with a registered address of a Class 4 venue and rent expenses (yes, I've found several)
- NGOs with address of other flagged NGOs
- NGO has a principal associated with another red flagged organisation
- NGO has a principal associated with a venue or a pokie
- NGO has income from any one pokie of more than 50% of income
I thought you might be interested in the top twenty community organisations that have been granted funding in the last financial year, along with the number of grants, and the date they were registered as an entity. The reason I monitor the number of grants is because I'm quite surprised at the volumes that do go through to many charities. If you have written a grant application you will know that the process, paperwork and bookkeeping can drive a girl to drink. This is why I can't help but be a wee bit suspicious of organisations that get multiple grants per month from a single funder.
You can see 20 organisations are getting 39.6% of the total grants from these pokies. Some of last year's favourites no longer make the cut: both Lucky Clover and Woman Care have basically halved in amount of grants given, down from $545k and $319k respectively.
|
Charity Name |
Total Grant Dollars Given |
Number of Grants |
Registration Date |
|
Heritage Foundation |
$233,455 |
20 |
17-10-22 |
|
Wushu Development of New Zealand Trust Board |
$233,457 |
18 |
25-08-24 |
|
Wish Foundation |
$236,075 |
19 |
24-07-24 |
|
Kotahitanga Charitable Trust |
$248,900 |
25 |
09-10-13 |
|
New Life Charitable Trust |
$251,467 |
32 |
06-08-18 |
|
New Zealand Shadow Puppet Art Troupe Inc |
$251,787 |
11 |
13-11-19 |
|
Caring Hearts Foundation Inc |
$271,649 |
14 |
10-07-23 |
|
Asian Help and Education Charitable Trust |
$283,805 |
25 |
08-06-17 |
|
New Zealand Sikh Community Tauranga Trust |
$306,382 |
6 |
19-07-12 |
|
Univision Community Trust |
$320,411 |
14 |
19-01-15 |
|
Middlemore Foundation for Health Innovation (The) |
$325,111 |
3 |
16-10-07 |
|
Next Era Sports (was New Zealand Child and Youth Education Trust) |
$387,662 |
12 |
19-11-18 |
|
New Zealand Multiculture and Arts Exchange Centre (was New Zealand Chinese and Arts Exchange Centre) |
$419,472 |
20 |
07-09-17 |
|
Supreme Sikh Society of New Zealand |
$419,513 |
21 |
30-06-08 |
|
Happy Valley Women and Children's Foundation |
$447,246 |
25 |
20-10-22 |
|
Asian Community Engagement Trust (was Natural Environment Defence Foundation) |
$475,510 |
26 |
08-07-20 |
|
Indian Association (Manakau) New Zealand Inc |
$489,000 |
3 |
15-12-81 |
|
New Zealand Sports and Community Development Trust |
$559,498 |
31 |
20-09-23 |
|
Inspired Families Foundational Trust |
$660,679 |
39 |
13-04-18 |
|
New Zealand Culture & Media Group Ltd |
$2,074,570 |
62 |
27-04-21 |
We can look at groups in the Top 50 funded that have been registered in 2024. There are four groups which make my list:
Now, I'm not saying that anything is off here: it could be that these four pokies are helping organisations to start up, but if I were in charge I would have hard look at this. What set these organisations apart of the multitude of others to get such support in start up phase?
I also note that New Zealand Sports and Community Development Trust are pulling in the grants. The investigation into their money must have found no issues.
If anyone is interested in having a look at the database I’ve pulled together please let me know. Its all publicly available data, but just assembled in a manner that makes it easier to interrogate.
I write about this stuff as I believe that we need to understand where funding comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there. These groups gave $22.4m into our communities last financial year via 2512 grants. In the greater scheme of things its rounding, but for many organisations surviving and doing great mahi it’s a lot of money. Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting, and if you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
- Greater Bay Sports Association Inc (Incorporated Society, 3 officers, $171k in 29 grants, registered 14 March 2024)
- Wushu Development of New Zealand Trust (5 Trustees, $233k in 18 grants, registered 25/7/2024)
- Wish Foundation (2 Trustees. $236k in 19 grants, noted on NZBN as registered 24/7/2024 but not registered on the Charities Services register)
- New Zealand Education and Creation Center (2 Trustees, received $166k in 12 grants, registered 20/6/2024)
Now, I'm not saying that anything is off here: it could be that these four pokies are helping organisations to start up, but if I were in charge I would have hard look at this. What set these organisations apart of the multitude of others to get such support in start up phase?
I also note that New Zealand Sports and Community Development Trust are pulling in the grants. The investigation into their money must have found no issues.
If anyone is interested in having a look at the database I’ve pulled together please let me know. Its all publicly available data, but just assembled in a manner that makes it easier to interrogate.
I write about this stuff as I believe that we need to understand where funding comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there. These groups gave $22.4m into our communities last financial year via 2512 grants. In the greater scheme of things its rounding, but for many organisations surviving and doing great mahi it’s a lot of money. Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting, and if you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
- Published on
I did a submission to the Minister on the proposed Online Casino Gambling Bill. Reproduced below, mainly for posterity as there seems little appetite for any of these discussions.
For decades New Zealand has had a system of linking gambling to community funding: think Lotto and Class 4 pokies as an example. These funding streams blossomed in the late part of last century, along with other funding streams such as community and energy trusts. This grant money has now created an ecosystem where people and organisations now rely on significant grant funding for operational and capital purposes, and New Zealand has twice as many charities per capita than say Australia. This supports communities – and families working for those organisations getting that grant money.
For decades New Zealand has had a system of linking gambling to community funding: think Lotto and Class 4 pokies as an example. These funding streams blossomed in the late part of last century, along with other funding streams such as community and energy trusts. This grant money has now created an ecosystem where people and organisations now rely on significant grant funding for operational and capital purposes, and New Zealand has twice as many charities per capita than say Australia. This supports communities – and families working for those organisations getting that grant money.
I had looked into this: above is a chart looking at Canterbury’s grant making ecosystem. While old data, there have been no significant changes in grant makers in the past decade. We can see that pokie make up around 50% of the grants going into Canterbury. If we include Lotto then around 2/3 of grant funding comes from gambling. There is no reason to think that Canterbury is not similar to the rest of the nation in terms of their grant profile.
This data of course ignores Government contracts and private / corporate giving, focusing on organisations who make grants into entities.
Pokies have some big advantages.
There are of course some issues with this grantmaking model:
However, the majority of the funds end up doing some good in the communities they support. NZCT has a very good schematic on the split of pokie funding. This split shows the share that goes to community funding groups (3.2 cents in the dollar), the Government (2.9 cents in the dollar) and 1.5 cents in the dollar to the operator and to the venue, along with 90.9 cents paid back to the gambler. Casinos do not have the same community funding burden on their business model.
My concern over the proposed changes is on the impact to the funding ecosystem. Pokies make up a significant portion of grant funding. That money is used to support all manner or organisations: sports clubs, health charities, schools, community groups and arts organisations, and used to pay for community assets, events and support thousands of salaries in New Zealand.
If funding were to be part of the online casino industry, proceeds from that funding could easily be leveraged into an existing grantmaking body without a need for replication: perhaps local bodies, the existing Lotto decision makers, or perhaps an existing pokie who has vetted good practice. The advantage of the latter is that they are already a low cost operator, likely lower cost than the other options which means more money ends up with communities.
I do believe that the grant making sector needs thought at a high level. To make this structural change to our essential pokie funding without considering the long term effects of this on the recipients is short sighted and will only result in even more demands on the public purse for support. We do have too much reliance on gambling. We do have too many charities replicating services and chewing up cash. We do have paid staff where before communities and volunteers stepped up. We do have messy funding boundaries between state and philanthropy. We do have too much power for our community resources with highly paid staff in grant making organisations who are often driven by populist agendas. We do have high cost systems. Some of my earlier work suggests that the cost of this process to NZ Inc is around $260m per annum, and that a grant costs around $4k to get into the community.
There are few people thinking about this: grant makers tend to put themselves at the centre of the solution, and grant seeking organisations tend to be organized based on sector rather than as resource seeking entities. Change tends to be incremental to the system rather than system redefining. I wrote this a while back but still see no reason why New Zealand couldn’t rethink the model. But this rethink requires policy which cuts across multiple portfolios, vision and strategy at the system level rather than a death by a thousand cuts approach which is what is happening at present.
I also think that NZ based entities are likely to be more responsive: we can see with many offshore companies there is a complete lack of response in relation to complaints and customer issues. International entities have a poor track record of being good citizens to our small nation, an issue I am sure Problem Gambling will highlight as a real concern.
Online gambling is in New Zealand already and its great that the Government is looking to bring some order to the sector. However, I think its remiss for community funding to be excluded from the model given the likely impact of online gambling on pokies. A better solution would be leveraging local providers and adding a community funding element which is commensurate with the amount Class 4 are required to provide while taking some time to critically review the grant making ecosystem and adjusting once a strategy is in place. An even playing field seems fair and the right thing to do for both New Zealand businesses and New Zealand communities.
This data of course ignores Government contracts and private / corporate giving, focusing on organisations who make grants into entities.
Pokies have some big advantages.
- Quick decision making
- Broad range of organisations funded
- Simple application procedures
- High trust model
There are of course some issues with this grantmaking model:
- Organisation overreliance on pokie funding
- Misuse of funds
- Some poor allocation of grant money – there are numerous articles on this
- Poor oversight of the ecosystem
However, the majority of the funds end up doing some good in the communities they support. NZCT has a very good schematic on the split of pokie funding. This split shows the share that goes to community funding groups (3.2 cents in the dollar), the Government (2.9 cents in the dollar) and 1.5 cents in the dollar to the operator and to the venue, along with 90.9 cents paid back to the gambler. Casinos do not have the same community funding burden on their business model.
My concern over the proposed changes is on the impact to the funding ecosystem. Pokies make up a significant portion of grant funding. That money is used to support all manner or organisations: sports clubs, health charities, schools, community groups and arts organisations, and used to pay for community assets, events and support thousands of salaries in New Zealand.
If funding were to be part of the online casino industry, proceeds from that funding could easily be leveraged into an existing grantmaking body without a need for replication: perhaps local bodies, the existing Lotto decision makers, or perhaps an existing pokie who has vetted good practice. The advantage of the latter is that they are already a low cost operator, likely lower cost than the other options which means more money ends up with communities.
I do believe that the grant making sector needs thought at a high level. To make this structural change to our essential pokie funding without considering the long term effects of this on the recipients is short sighted and will only result in even more demands on the public purse for support. We do have too much reliance on gambling. We do have too many charities replicating services and chewing up cash. We do have paid staff where before communities and volunteers stepped up. We do have messy funding boundaries between state and philanthropy. We do have too much power for our community resources with highly paid staff in grant making organisations who are often driven by populist agendas. We do have high cost systems. Some of my earlier work suggests that the cost of this process to NZ Inc is around $260m per annum, and that a grant costs around $4k to get into the community.
There are few people thinking about this: grant makers tend to put themselves at the centre of the solution, and grant seeking organisations tend to be organized based on sector rather than as resource seeking entities. Change tends to be incremental to the system rather than system redefining. I wrote this a while back but still see no reason why New Zealand couldn’t rethink the model. But this rethink requires policy which cuts across multiple portfolios, vision and strategy at the system level rather than a death by a thousand cuts approach which is what is happening at present.
I also think that NZ based entities are likely to be more responsive: we can see with many offshore companies there is a complete lack of response in relation to complaints and customer issues. International entities have a poor track record of being good citizens to our small nation, an issue I am sure Problem Gambling will highlight as a real concern.
Online gambling is in New Zealand already and its great that the Government is looking to bring some order to the sector. However, I think its remiss for community funding to be excluded from the model given the likely impact of online gambling on pokies. A better solution would be leveraging local providers and adding a community funding element which is commensurate with the amount Class 4 are required to provide while taking some time to critically review the grant making ecosystem and adjusting once a strategy is in place. An even playing field seems fair and the right thing to do for both New Zealand businesses and New Zealand communities.