Action Point 5: Tighten restrictions on political donations

Tightened restrictions on political donations will limit the undue influence exerted by wealthy individuals and organisations, creating a fairer political landscape in New Zealand.

Decisions made by our leaders should reflect the public interest, not private wealth.

But New Zealand’s current political donation system allows large contributions from individuals and organisations, creating opportunities for wealthy individuals or organisations to gain privileged access to policymakers and potentially shape decision-making. This system fuels concerns that policy decisions might prioritise the interests of donors over the public good.

By capping the size of individual contributions, political campaigns would rely more on a broader base of smaller donations, reducing the disproportionate influence of large donors. This could create a more level playing field where success depends less on financial power and more on widespread public support. Additional measures such as requiring the identity of anyone donating over $1,500 to be publicly disclosed and limiting donor eligibility to registered voters would enhance the transparency of political funding.

What we are asking for

city street

What these measures will achieve

A cap on individual donations will reduce the risk of large donors exerting disproportionate influence over political parties or candidates. A $30,000 donation limit is supported by recent research and public opinion.

A cap on individual donations would promote a fairer political process by reducing reliance on wealthy donors and encouraging a broader base of smaller donations. However, state funding would be needed to offset the loss of revenue to ensure all parties have the resources they need to operate effectively and engage with voters, which would require careful public consultation and testing to ensure effectiveness and public support. Options for state funding mechanisms are outlined in the The Independent Electoral Review (2023) and in Money for Something (2022). 

Lowering public disclosure thresholds for donations from $5,000 to $1,500 would enhance transparency, helping to clearly identify sources of political funding earlier and reducing the risk of hidden influence from large donors. 

Restricting donations to eligible voters

The Independent Electoral Review (2023) proposes that limiting eligibility to individuals enrolled to vote would increase public trust in political funding by reducing the perception of undue influence by organisations, businesses or foreign entities. It also enhances transparency because tying donations to identifiable individuals makes it easier to track the sources of political funding. Survey data from the 2023 New Zealand Election Study indicates public support for this recommendation, which is also endorsed by the Shining a Light and Money for Something reports.

These reforms will align New Zealand’s political funding with global standards and reduce the risk of corruption. To ensure these changes reflect the values of all New Zealanders, we need an open conversation about political funding and how we can support a fairer democracy.

Why action is needed

Limiting and bringing transparency to political donations will reduce the risk of undue influence and enhance public trust in the political system. Large donations can shape policy decisions in ways that may not align with the public interest, leading to public distrust. Recent public surveys have indicated widespread concern over the undue influence of big donors on political decisions and suggest strong public support for capping donations and increasing openness and transparency (Chapple et al., 2021, Rashbrooke and Marriott, 2022, Vowles & Krewel, 2024). 

Of the 38 member countries of the OECD, 20 have established limits on political donations and many OECD countries prohibit foreign individuals and entities, public entities and corporations from making political donations (Transparency International, 2023). In contrast, New Zealand currently has no cap on the amount that an individual may donate or loan to a party or candidate. A cap of $30,000 per electoral cycle or $10,000 per year would still be significantly higher than individual donation limits in similar countries. For example, in Canada, the annual limit for donations to a party is around NZ$2,000, while in Ireland, it is approximately NZ$4,500.

Aligning New Zealand’s practices with international standards on political donations will ensure a fairer and more democratic electoral process. Currently some political parties receive substantial donations from wealthy donors, which gives a small number of powerful donors unfair influence. Capping donations, tightening disclosure requirements and anonymous donation limits, and restricting donor eligibility would limit the outsized influence of wealthy individuals and businesses in the political process and increase transparency.

While legal, the donation violated the spirit of electoral donation laws intended to limit foreign influence (Newstalk ZB).

These funds were reportedly used for party-related expenses without proper disclosure, raising concerns about transparency and adherence to electoral laws. The “New Zealand First Loophole” was addressed by the Electoral Amendment Act 2022, which expanded the definition of party donations to cover third-party entities, lowered the public disclosure threshold from $15,000 to $5,000, and introduced penalties for unreported donations. However, further restrictions on political donations are needed to address remaining gaps that could allow for undisclosed influence.

Current laws allow significant contributions to remain hidden, enabling wealthy individuals and organisations to potentially sway political decisions without public scrutiny. McKenzie emphasises the need for greater transparency and stricter regulations to ensure that political funding does not undermine public trust in the electoral system.

  • The report cites a former party president who says, “Some donors had a clear expectation of influence. They were a small group, but they were there. People who gave money because they wanted a particular piece of legislation or a particular permission to emerge somewhere – either at the local or national level” (p. 46).