The top priority for political party bosses is to get as much money as possible for social media campaigns and election campaigns. This money makes the difference between winning and losing so they need to give those who make so called donations what they want in order to keep money rolling in each year.
There have been numerous articles and items published and broadcast over many years about the steadily increasing problems facing the environment and society but usually only token gestures have been made towards dealing with them. As the rich grow richer and richer, their influence over political party policies grows stronger and stronger. This needs to be reversed if democracy is to survive and people like you are to get a fair deal.
While Ministers are careful not to take bribes themselves, the parties they belong to need big money for social media and election campaigns so Party bosses have to arrange for those giving donations to get all or most of what they want. If they do not deliver then they miss out on future donations.
Unlike most other countries New Zealand does not have a capital gains tax, inheritance tax, land tax, wealth tax or stamp duty on property transactions so, if this does not change, you and the average person are going to have to pay increasing income tax and get fewer essential services.
A 2020 survey by Victoria University of Wellington found that 34% of the public believed that corruption was widespread throughout the Government in New Zealand and that 71% had no or very little confidence in how political parties are funded. Only 6% had trust in politicians and political parties. Later surveys showed that two thirds of people thought that the country was being run for the benefit of the wealthy. These disturbing findings indicate that action is now required on political party funding and that a Royal Commission of Inquiry is needed to recommend major reforms rather than relying on political parties to decide on what changes they would like to make.
Every election, millions of dollars flow into political party coffers from wealthy donors who aren’t giving to democracy out of civic duty – they’re making investments. And the returns on those investments to them come straight out of your pocket.
For example, when property developers donate hundreds of thousands to political parties and then get favourable policies and legislation introduced, your dream of homeownership gets pushed further away. When liquor companies fund politicians who water down alcohol regulations, you pay through higher prices, healthcare costs and crime. When wealthy landlords get a $2,900,000,000 tax break and avoid having to pay a of a capital gains tax through strategic donations, you shoulder more of the tax burden while they get richer.
This isn’t conspiracy theory – it’s how New Zealand’s political donation system works. While you’re limited to one vote every three years, those with deep pockets can buy influence every single day through a donation system so poorly regulated that even banana republics would blush.
The most insidious part? The very politicians who benefit from this corrupt system are the ones supposed to fix it. It’s like asking burglars to install your home security system. And surprise, surprise – they keep finding reasons why the current system is “working just fine.”
The Price You Pay for a Democracy That’s For Sale
Let’s be crystal clear about what political donations cost you personally. This isn’t abstract political science – it’s money missing from your bank account every month.
Remember when Labour promised a capital gains tax to make the tax system fairer? That policy would have meant property speculators and wealthy investors finally paying their share, potentially reducing the tax burden on wage and salary earners like you. But after fierce lobbying and donations from property interests, Labour abandoned the policy. The result? You keep paying the full tax load while property millionaires pay nothing on their gains.
Or consider the housing crisis. Political parties have received millions from property developers, real estate agencies, and landlord associations. Is it any wonder that policies consistently favour investors over first-home buyers? Every donation from the property lobby is another young family priced out of the market, another year of saving destroyed by runaway prices.
The liquor industry provides another stark example. Despite overwhelming evidence of alcohol’s social costs – domestic violence, health problems, crime – successive governments have blocked meaningful reform. Why? Follow the money. The hospitality and liquor industries are major political donors, buying themselves weak regulations while you pay through higher prices, insurance premiums, healthcare costs, and crime.
Climate change action faces the same corruption. Energy companies, major emitters, and industries opposing climate action donate strategically to political parties. Every dollar they spend delaying action is a future cost you’ll bear through extreme weather, failing infrastructure, and economic disruption. Your children will literally pay for today’s political donations.
Even your grocery bill reflects political donation corruption. The supermarket duopoly has survived decades of criticism about their monopolistic practices. They’ve avoided real competition reforms that would lower prices. How? By maintaining relationships with politicians through donations, lobbying, and the revolving door. Those $10 blocks of butter? That’s what regulatory capture tastes like.
How New Zealand’s Donation System Actually Works
To understand why you’re getting fleeced, you need to understand how political donations actually work in New Zealand. Spoiler alert: it’s designed to hide who’s buying influence.
Officially, any donation over $5,000 must be disclosed. Sounds reasonable, right? Wrong. The loopholes are so massive you could drive a truck full of money through them – and donors regularly do.
First, there’s donation splitting. Instead of giving $50,000 that must be disclosed, donors give 10 payments of $4,999 that fly under the radar. The New Zealand First Foundation scandal exposed this practice on an industrial scale – nearly $500,000 was paid to the Foundation and was then loaned to the party so the money was not counted as donations.
Then there are other trusts and foundations. Donors give money to a trust, which then passes it to the political party. The party only has to disclose the trust as the donor, not the actual source of the money. It’s money laundering in a three-piece suit. These aren’t criminal organisations – they’re registered charities and legal entities operating in broad daylight.
Anonymous donations through the Electoral Commission provide another avenue for influence-buying. Anyone can give up to $5,000 anonymously, and there’s no limit on how many anonymous donations a party can receive. Theoretically, a billionaire could structure dozens of maximum anonymous donations through various entities and remain completely hidden.
Foreign donations are supposedly banned, but the reality is more complex. Foreign-owned companies registered in New Zealand can donate freely. Wealthy foreigners can funnel money through New Zealand residents or companies. The ban is about as effective as a flyscreen on a submarine.
Corporate donations add another layer of opacity. When “Smith Holdings Ltd” donates $30,000, who’s really behind it? The beneficial ownership could be anyone – foreign interests, controversial figures, or industries seeking specific policy outcomes. Our disclosure laws don’t require drilling down to the actual humans writing the checks.
The timing of donations matters too. Donations made outside election year face less scrutiny and different disclosure requirements. A well-timed donation in an off-year can buy significant influence without the public attention that comes during campaign season.
The Cash-for-Access Schemes: Buying Face Time with Power
Beyond straight donations lies an even more insidious practice: cash-for-access schemes where wealthy individuals and businesses literally buy meetings with ministers and prime ministers.
The National Party’s “Cabinet Club” was the most notorious example. For donations of $10,000 or more, members got exclusive dinners and meetings with Cabinet ministers. It wasn’t subtle – it was a literal price list for political access. While you might struggle to get your local MP to return your calls, corporate executives were buying regular face time with the people making decisions about your life.
Labour claimed moral high ground but quickly established their own “Business Forum” where companies paid $1,795 per person to attend conferences with senior ministers. Different name, same game – those who can pay get to whisper in the ears of power while ordinary citizens who contact a MP get form letters from electorate offices.
These aren’t just social occasions. Business leaders use these opportunities to push specific policies, raise “concerns” about regulations, and build relationships that translate into favourable treatment. When a property developer who’s donated $50,000 texts the minister as a “mate” about a development issue, whose interests do you think get prioritized?
The real scandal is that it’s all perfectly legal. There are no limits on how many exclusive fundraising events parties can hold, no restrictions on attendees, and minimal disclosure requirements. The invitation lists and actual conversations remain secret. Democracy is literally being auctioned to the highest bidder behind closed doors.
In 1936 the New Zealand National Party was formed to look after the interests of businesses, farmers and those on higher incomes. They represent about 20% of the voting population so it is necessary to spend a lot of money to convince other voters to vote for the party. Longtime National MP and retired Minister and Speaker, Sir David Carter told RNZ on 9 August 2021 that “When we did a substantial review after the devastating defeat at the last election, two things were evident in that review… One was the dysfunction of the governance of the party and the other was a lack of money to run a suitable campaign.” Published figures show that in 2017 and 2020 the Labour Party received about $1.6m and $1.5m and the National Party $4.6m and $2.8m. Clearly, the National Party relies heavily on getting a lot of money from vested interests in order to gain and retain power. A large proportion of this money is used for social media and other activities that are not open to public scrutiny. The 2014 book “Dirty Politics” was able to document some of these secret activities as a result of a computer hack.
Claims are made by party leaders that they do not know who has given money to their party but recordings made by Jami-lee Ross in 2018 clearly show that he and his party leader were well aware of large donations and had dinner with donors and that money could even buy a good place on the party list.
Case Studies: When Donations Buy Policy
The connection between donations and policy outcomes isn’t theoretical – it’s documented in scandal after scandal that would have toppled governments in countries with functioning accountability systems.
The following are a few selected cases
The New Zealand First Foundation Scandal
Between 2017 and 2019, the New Zealand First Foundation collected nearly $500,000 from wealthy donors including racing industry figures, forestry companies, and property developers. This money funded party operations while avoiding disclosure laws. Coincidentally (or not), NZ First in government delivered wins for these very industries – racing got a billion-dollar bailout, forestry got favourable policies, and Shane Jones’ Provincial Growth Fund seemed remarkably aligned with donor interests.
The Serious Fraud Office laid charges, but the case collapsed on technicalities. The message to donors was clear: the system protects those who know how to work it. No one went to jail, no one paid meaningful penalties, and the practices that enabled this scandal remain largely intact.
A Newsroom article on 9 December 2020 stated: “Previously, Winston Peters blocked anything that looked like a capital gains tax. Some of his supporters like Conrad Properties (big donors to the controversial NZ First Foundation) had lobbied against it.”
Evidence was given at the Serious Fraud Office trial of NZ First that an overseas apartment property developer wanted to get legislation changed. He contacted a lobbyist and was advised to give NZ First $150,000. The legislation change was passed later in the year and the final payment made.
National’s Chinese Businessman Scandal
Chinese businessman Zhang Yikun donated $100,000 to National, split into amounts just below the disclosure threshold. When exposed, it emerged he’d bought a $100,000 table at a fundraising event, had private meetings with then-Prime Minister John Key, and was pushing for specific immigration changes that would benefit his business interests. The donation splitting was so blatant it led to criminal charges, though again, the system protected those involved with minimal consequences.
Labour’s Liu Scandal
Businessman Donghua Liu’s donations to Labour created a political firestorm when it emerged he’d given money to multiple parties while facing immigration issues. The scandal revealed how wealthy individuals shop around, donating to whoever might help their business interests. Liu had donated to Labour, then National, buying access across the political spectrum.
Te Pāti Māori’s Repeated Violations
Te Pāti Māori has repeatedly failed to comply with donation disclosure laws, including not declaring over $300,000 in donations and filing late, unaudited returns. The party’s co-founder’s Waipareira Trust illegally donated hundreds of thousands to political campaigns, leading to a Charities Commission investigation. Yet the party continues operating with minimal consequences, showing how toothless our enforcement mechanisms are.
The Fast-Track Legislation Payoff
Most recently, companies that donated to National, Act, and NZ First are now benefiting from fast-track consenting legislation that bypasses environmental protections. Miners, property developers, and infrastructure companies gave hundreds of thousands in donations – now they’re getting streamlined approvals for projects that communities oppose. It’s corruption in real-time, happening right before our eyes.
John Banks
Former Cabinet Minister, John Banks got donations from Mr Dotcom and then phoned the Minister of Immigration, who was a friend, to try and get special treatment for Mr Dotcom.
Shane Jones
Minister of Immigration, Shane Jones approved citizenship for a Chinese fraudster who made a large donation to the Labour Party and boasted that as a result he would get citizenship.
Why New Zealand’s Weak Donation Laws Enable Corruption
New Zealand’s political donation laws are so weak they’re practically an invitation to corruption. Here’s why:
Pathetic Disclosure Thresholds: Even at the new $5,000 level, the disclosure threshold remains too high. In Canada, donations over $200 must be disclosed. In the UK, it’s £500. Our threshold allows significant influence-buying to remain hidden.
No Donation Caps: Unlike most developed democracies, New Zealand has no limits on how much individuals or organizations can donate. In Canada, only individuals can donate, and then only give $1,650 per year to a political party. In New Zealand, millionaires can give millions – and they do.
Weak Enforcement: The Electoral Commission has minimal powers and resources. When violations occur, penalties are rare and laughably small – often less than the benefit gained from breaking the rules. It’s like having a speed limit with a 50 cent fine.
No Real-Time Disclosure: Donations are disclosed months or even years after they’re made, long after they’ve potentially influenced policy. Modern technology could enable real-time disclosure, but parties resist transparency that might embarrass donors or reveal patterns of influence.
Trust and Foundation Loopholes: The ability to funnel money through intermediate entities makes a mockery of transparency. These structures serve no purpose except to hide the true source of political money.
No Cooling-Off Periods: Politicians can move straight from making decisions to lobbying about those same decisions, monetizing their insider knowledge and connections. This revolving door corrupts the entire system.
The International Comparison: How Far Behind We’ve Fallen
New Zealand politicians love to boast about our perceived international reputation, but when it comes to political finance regulation, we’re embarrassingly behind other democracies.
Australia recently established a National Anti-Corruption Commission with real teeth. They have donation disclosure requirements at both federal and state level, public funding of political parties to reduce reliance on private money, and active enforcement of political finance laws.
Canada strictly limits individual donations, bans corporate and union donations entirely, provides public funding based on votes received, and requires quarterly disclosure of donations. Their system recognizes that unlimited private money corrupts democracy.
The UK has donation caps, quarterly reporting requirements, strict rules about foreign donations, and an Electoral Commission with real enforcement powers. They learned from their scandals – we keep repeating ours.
Even the United States, hardly a paragon of clean politics, has stricter disclosure requirements than New Zealand in many respects. Their Federal Election Commission requires detailed, frequent reporting of all political money.
The European Union has moved toward comprehensive regulation of political finance, recognizing that dark money threatens democratic institutions. Many EU countries have donation caps, public funding systems, and strict transparency requirements.
New Zealand stands out as a laggard, clinging to a colonial-era faith in “chaps doing the right thing” while sophisticated influence operations corrupt our democracy. We’re not leading the world – we’re being left behind.
What The Integrity Institute is Doing
The Integrity Institute recognizes that New Zealand’s democracy is being sold to the highest bidder through a corrupted donation system. We’re fighting back through research, exposure, and advocacy for comprehensive reform.
Research and Investigation
We’re building New Zealand’s first comprehensive database of political donations and their outcomes. By tracking who gives money, when they give it, and what policy outcomes follow, we’re exposing patterns of influence that parties try to hide.
Our investigations dig deeper than official disclosures. We trace beneficial ownership of corporate donors, map networks of connected trusts and foundations, and identify donation splitting schemes. We’re building the evidence base that proves systematic corruption, not isolated incidents.
Recent investigations have exposed how fast-track legislation benefits major donors, how trusts hide controversial funding sources, and how donation timing correlates with policy changes. We’re connecting dots that politicians hope stay unconnected.
Public Education
Most New Zealanders don’t understand how political donations corrupt their democracy because the system is designed to be opaque. We’re changing that through accessible analysis that shows exactly how donation dollars translate into policies that hurt ordinary families.
Our regular briefings translate complex financial disclosures into clear stories about influence. We name names, follow money trails, and show the real-world impacts of political corruption. When property developers donate and get favourable changes, we calculate what that costs first-home buyers. When liquor companies buy weak regulations, we quantify the social costs.
We’re also building tools for citizen investigators. Our guides show how to research political donations, identify patterns, and hold parties accountable. Democracy works when citizens have the tools to expose corruption.
Advocacy for Reform
The Integrity Institute is campaigning for comprehensive political finance reform, which could include the following reforms:
- Donation Caps: Limit individual donations to $1,500 per year, ban corporate donations entirely, and close all trust and foundation loopholes
- Real-Time Disclosure: Require disclosure of all donations over $200 within 48 hours using modern technology
- Public Funding: Establish partial public funding of political parties based on vote share to reduce reliance on wealthy donors
- Strict Enforcement: Create an independent anti-corruption agency with real powers to investigate and prosecute political finance violations
- Foreign Donation Ban: Implement a real ban on foreign influence with serious penalties and proactive enforcement
- Cooling-Off Periods: Require two-year gaps before politicians can lobby or work for industries they regulated
- Transparency Requirements: Mandate disclosure of all fundraising events, attendee lists, and minister meeting records
Building the Movement
Real reform requires public pressure that makes corruption politically costly. We’re building that pressure by:
- Creating voter guides that highlight which candidates take money from which interests
- Supporting local groups fighting corporate influence in their communities
- Working with unions and civil society organizations representing ordinary New Zealanders
- Engaging with international anti-corruption organizations to increase external pressure
- Building media literacy so journalists ask tougher questions about political money
The Path Forward: Clean Money or Dirty Politics
New Zealand faces a choice. We can continue allowing wealthy interests to buy political influence while inequality grows and public trust collapses. Or we can demand a democracy where ideas matter more than money, where policies reflect public good rather than private profit.
The current system isn’t broken – it’s working exactly as designed to benefit those who can afford to pay. Every donation scandal that ends without meaningful consequences, every policy that mysteriously aligns with donor interests, every loophole that stays open despite obvious abuse – these aren’t failures. They’re features of a system designed by and for the wealthy.
But change is possible. Countries around the world have cleaned up their political finance systems when citizens demanded it. The same can happen here, but only if we stop accepting corruption as “just how things work.”
The cost of inaction compounds daily. Every election cycle funded by dark money further entrenches corrupt networks. Every policy bought by donor dollars makes inequality worse. Every young person priced out of housing, every family struggling with monopoly prices, every community bearing environmental costs while polluters profit – these are the real costs of political donations.
The Integrity Institute is committed to exposing, educating, and advocating until New Zealand has a political finance system worthy of a modern democracy. But we can’t do it alone. Democracy is not a spectator sport – it requires active citizens demanding accountability from those who claim to represent them.
The price of political donations is too high, paid by ordinary New Zealanders every single day. It’s time to stop the sale of our democracy to the highest bidder. The integrity of our future depends on it.
Political Donations in New Zealand: A Comprehensive Bibliography
This bibliography provides a curated list of resources on the issue of political donations in New Zealand. It encompasses academic analysis, investigative journalism, official reports, and reform proposals. The materials cover various facets of political donations, including transparency deficits, the influence of wealthy donors on policy-making, regulatory gaps, court cases involving undisclosed donations, calls for reform, and specific case studies of donation scandals in New Zealand.
Each entry below includes the bibliography details and a brief description of the item.
The bibliography is in three parts: Part One lists selected works by The Integrity Institute’s Bryce Edwards; Part Two details key investigative journalism and media commentary; and Part Three highlights academic and research resources. Each part is in chronological date order where possible.
Part One: Works by Dr Bryce Edwards
Bryce Edwards: “Are new donation rules the answer?” NZ Herald, 2 May 2012.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-political-round-up-are-new-donation-rules-the-answer/TRONSCAO4RKRV7KRBYUHNPBN44/
Summary: This column examines new rules around political donations, particularly focusing on issues of anonymity and disclosure. It discusses controversies such as donations to NZ First by the Vela family and the John Banks case, illustrating how existing regulations could be circumvented, allowing large sums to be donated without full public knowledge of their source. The article critiques the adequacy of then-current anonymous donation provisions (under $1500 or via the Electoral Commission) and argues for greater transparency, potentially banning anonymous donations altogether or significantly lowering the threshold, to ensure all political funding is open to scrutiny.
Bryce Edwards: “Is there ‘cash for access’ in NZ politics?” NZ Herald, 20 June 2014
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-is-there-cash-for-access-in-nz-politics/EDVSWDH3FPMJACUQC4QEVHOZ4M/
Summary: This column likely scrutinizes “cash for access” schemes, where financial contributions to political parties are allegedly exchanged for privileged meetings with ministers and senior politicians. It would have explored the ethical concerns surrounding such practices, the potential for undue influence on policy-making, and specific examples such as the National Party’s “Cabinet Club.” The piece would also reflect on the political discourse around these issues, including criticisms from opposition parties.
Bryce Edwards: “The tricky business of mixing money and politics,” NZ Herald, 23 June 2014.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-the-tricky-business-of-mixing-money-and-politics/L24VAEXCQKNZ7CMQC2QIC2R22Q/
Summary: This article discusses allegations about National’s fundraising mechanisms, such as using restaurant fundraisers to funnel smaller donations into one large sum, and compares this to controversies surrounding David Cunliffe’s trust. Edwards highlights the escalating battle over hypocrisy and untrustworthiness concerning political donations and conflicts of interest, arguing that all parties can appear “tricky” when it comes to money and politics, ultimately damaging public trust.
Bryce Edwards: “10 lessons from the Labour-Liu scandal,” NZ Herald, 25 June 2014.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-10-lessons-from-the-labour-liu-scandal/H45O6UNINJUNCIMEN7UXOCNFM4/
Summary: This article provides an analysis of the political controversy surrounding businessman Donghua Liu and his donations to both the National and Labour parties. It draws lessons about the nature of political scandals, the role of “gotcha politics,” the tendency for such issues to escalate, and the significant public interest in understanding the connections between money, political donations, and potential influence on democratic processes. The piece reflects on how such controversies can impact public confidence in politics.
Bryce Edwards: “Money in politics: Why businesses are donating to politicians,” NZ Herald, 2 March 2015.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/money-in-politics-why-businesses-are-donating-to-politicians/RPIJSSORKTIXCOLYI7VB3KH6UU/)
Summary: This article examines business donations to political candidates in New Zealand, based on an analysis of election candidate donation returns. It highlights that companies like Talley’s Group donate to multiple candidates, often favouring those on select committees relevant to their industry (e.g., primary production). Edwards notes that donations are rarely altruistic and often part of a broader strategy to support particular policies or gain influence, with property developers also being significant contributors.
Bryce Edwards: “What’s going on with NZ First’s mysterious donations?”, 21 November 2019.
URL: https://democracyproject.nz/2019/11/21/bryce-edwards-whats-going-on-with-nz-firsts-mysterious-donations/
Summary: An early analysis of the New Zealand First Foundation scandal that emerged in November 2019. Edwards examines how the foundation appeared to be collecting donations from wealthy donors and using the money to finance election campaigns, pay for legal advice, and fund other political expenses without proper disclosure. The column notes that although New Zealand is perceived as low-corruption, such secretive donation arrangements “bias the system in favour of the wealthy and well-connected”, undermining public trust. This piece set the stage for public debate on closing loopholes in party funding laws.
Bryce Edwards: “National’s embarrassing donation scandal.” NZ Herald, 19 Feb 2020.
URL: ?
Edwards examines the fallout from Serious Fraud Office charges over two large donations to the National Party involving ex-MP Jami-Lee Ross. He explains that although no current National officials were charged, an insider (Ross) was deeply involved, making the saga a “major embarrassment” for the party. The annotation details how donation splitting was allegedly used to evade disclosure laws, and discusses the political damage inflicted in an election year. It underscores the reputational risks when big-money contributions skirt the rules, and foreshadows legal reforms to come.
Bryce Edwards: “NZ First’s court trial shows the need for political finance reform,” 11 June 2022.
URL: https://democracyproject.nz/2022/06/11/bryce-edwards-nz-firsts-court-trial-shows-the-need-for-political-finance-reform/
Summary: This article argues that the court trial involving the New Zealand First Foundation starkly illustrates the pressing need for comprehensive political finance reform. Edwards highlights three key issues emerging from the trial: evidence suggesting vested interests donated to NZ First seeking private gain; the ease with which donors apparently circumvented electoral disclosure laws, for example, by splitting large donations into smaller, non-disclosable amounts; and the fact that the Serious Fraud Office had to resort to charges under the Crimes Act rather than the Electoral Act, potentially due to weaknesses and low penalties in the latter. The trial exposed systemic vulnerabilities in how political donations are regulated and declared.
Bryce Edwards: “Cash for access to politicians continues.” NZ Herald, 15 June 2021.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-political-roundup-cash-for-access-to-politicians-continues/WEVOHD7JJO4IH4PH5L3HDU2NOY/
Summary: Edwards examines the continuation of “cash for access” schemes by both major parties, particularly Labour’s Business Conference where businesspeople paid $1,795 to meet with senior ministers including the Prime Minister. He draws parallels with National’s previous Cabinet Club and argues this represents an ongoing problem where wealthy individuals can buy access to decision-makers. The column highlights how virtually every party has been involved in questionable donation practices and calls for more transparency.
Bryce Edwards: “Wealthy can buy access to power – and politicians don’t want this changed.” NZ Herald, 23 June 2022.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-wealthy-can-buy-access-to-power-and-politicians-dont-want-this-changed/FBRUWQ4U4SRYXRYZYSYCPTNSMY/
Summary: This article critiques ongoing “cash for access” schemes used by both Labour and National parties, where large financial contributions secure meetings with senior politicians. Edwards discusses how these arrangements often circumvent disclosure laws and examines the NZ First Foundation trial details showing private wealth being funnelled through schemes to avoid Electoral Act requirements. He argues that the reform process has been designed behind closed doors with minimal public consultation.
Bryce Edwards: “Tinkering with donation laws leaves money buying politics.” NZ Herald, 2 July 2022.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-tinkering-with-donation-laws-leaves-money-buying-politics/YQKME2WZVFRW5WLSZBQ45QQS3E/
Summary: Edwards critiques Labour’s announced changes to donation disclosure laws, arguing they represent mere “tinkering” rather than comprehensive reform. He discusses the reduction of the disclosure threshold from $15,000 to $5,000 (though the Ministry of Justice had proposed $1,500) and examines why more substantial reforms are needed. The article highlights public survey evidence showing strong concern about wealthy influence on politics and questions the timing of reforms announced prior to independent review processes.
Bryce Edwards: “Public submissions on political donation reform released,” 21 July 2022.
URL: https://democracyproject.nz/2022/07/21/bryce-edwards-public-submissions-on-political-donation-reform-released/
Summary: Edwards reveals how public feedback on planned donation law changes was initially kept under wraps by officials. After a hard-fought Official Information Act request, he obtained submissions on the Government’s proposals. This article summarises the themes: overwhelming public support for greater transparency and lower donation caps, frustration at the short consultation, and concern that some political parties insisted on confidentiality for their submissions. Edwards highlights the irony that a reform aimed at openness was conducted so secretively, reinforcing public cynicism about politicians “marking their own homework” on donation rules.
Bryce Edwards: “Time to take political donations law seriously.” 3 August 2022.
URL: https://democracyproject.nz/2022/08/03/bryce-edwards-time-to-take-political-donations-law-seriously/
Summary: Prompted by a series of high-profile donation scandals, including the NZ First Foundation case and others involving major parties, Edwards makes a strong call for comprehensive reform of New Zealand’s political finance regulations. He describes current laws as “porous” and easily circumvented, allowing hidden money to influence politics. The article advocates for specific measures such as significantly lowering donation disclosure thresholds, banning opaque funding mechanisms like secret trusts and foundations, and establishing an independent agency to enforce political finance laws effectively. Without serious reform, Edwards contends, New Zealand’s democratic integrity and international reputation will continue to be damaged by the perception and reality of hidden financial influence.
Bryce Edwards: “If the NZ First Foundation accused are not guilty, then who is?” NZ Herald, 22 July 2022.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-if-the-nz-first-foundation-accused-are-not-guilty-then-who-is/I6Y2SHBPL5RNZC4ILD7LVWEBBE/
Summary: This column reflects on the broader implications for political donation integrity following the acquittal (on a technicality related to the specific charges) of individuals associated with the New Zealand First Foundation. Edwards argues that if the actions undertaken to channel funds to the party did not meet the threshold for guilt under existing laws, it exposes severe deficiencies in those laws. The outcome suggests that substantial sums of money can influence politics without legal accountability, reinforcing the need for clear legal definitions of corrupt practices and robust reforms to prevent abuses that undermine democratic principles.
Bryce Edwards: “Nash’s sacking means a deeper probe into Cabinet ‘insider trading’ is required.” NZ Herald, 29 March 2023.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/political-roundup-stuart-nashs-sacking-means-a-deeper-probe-into-cabinet-insider-trading-is-required/ITH2DLKURJEPXIU3GVIPMPUQHM/
Summary: Following Minister Stuart Nash’s dismissal after revelations he had shared confidential Cabinet information with donors, Edwards argues for a more extensive investigation into how ministers handle sensitive information and their relationships with donors. He draws a parallel to “insider trading,” where privileged information is potentially misused to benefit supporters. The article suggests this case might indicate a wider problem of casual favouritism and calls for an inquiry into Cabinet confidentiality protocols and the influence of donors to prevent a form of corruption rooted in the misuse of insider knowledge.
Bryce Edwards: “Who is funding National to victory?” 25 August 2023.
URL: https://democracyproject.nz/2023/08/25/bryce-edwards-who-is-funding-national-to-victory/
Summary: This analysis examines the National Party’s significant fundraising success in the lead-up to the 2023 general election, noting it had amassed $8.2 million in large donations since the start of 2021. The article details major donors and their industries, including building supplies, finance, property development, racing, and farming. Edwards emphasizes the need for close public scrutiny of these financial ties to identify and mitigate potential conflicts of interest or perceptions that large donations could result in preferential policy treatment for wealthy donors should National form a government.
Bryce Edwards: “Te Pāti Māori political donations scandal gets worse”, August 2023).
URL: https://theintegrityinstitute.substack.com/p/te-pati-maori-political-donations
Summary: Analysis of Te Pāti Māori’s repeated breaches of electoral finance rules. Edwards documents how the party failed to declare over $300k of donations in 2021 and filed late, unaudited 2023 donation reports – patterns suggesting disregard for the law. He also highlights the role of party president John Tamihere’s Waipareira Trust, a charity that unlawfully donated hundreds of thousands to political campaigns (leading to a regulators’ investigation). Edwards warns that this “cavalier attitude” toward donation laws undermines electoral integrity.
Bryce Edwards: “Court ruling shows big political donations can be given secretly.” 23 November 2023.
URL: https://democracyproject.nz/2023/11/23/bryce-edwards-court-ruling-shows-big-political-donations-can-be-given-secretly/
Summary: Edwards comments on a court decision (from the NZ First Foundation case) that exposed gaping loopholes in the law. The High Court’s acquittal of foundation operators underscored that wealthy interests could bankroll parties via third-party entities without disclosure. Edwards argues this verdict “officially” confirms that shadow donation structures are legal, calling it a wake-up call that New Zealand’s political finance rules are “not fit for purpose.” This commentary increased pressure on lawmakers to outlaw hidden funding channels.
Bryce Edwards: “Political donations, Lobbying, Labour Party recovery, the media’s performance, and National’s questionable reforms.” 19 December 2023.
URL: https://democracyproject.nz/2023/12/19/bryce-edwards-political-donations-lobbying-labour-party-recovery-the-medias-performance-and-nationals-questionable-reforms/
Summary: This political roundup touches on the interplay between political donations and lobbying. It specifically discusses the natural health sector’s relationship with NZ First and its donations in the context of the repeal of the Therapeutic Products Act. The article also notes the involvement of former Prime Minister Bill English, then a consultant engaged in lobbying, in reviewing the state housing agency Kāinga Ora, illustrating how financial relationships and lobbying intersect in the policy arena.
Bryce Edwards: “NZ elections are being Americanised with ‘dark money’ flowing into campaign groups.” 27 February 2024.
URL: https://democracyproject.substack.com/p/nz-elections-are-being-americanised
Summary: This article investigates the increasing phenomenon of untraceable political spending channelled through third-party advocacy groups in New Zealand elections. Edwards draws parallels with “dark money” in American politics, arguing that such opaque funding mechanisms can corrupt electoral processes by obscuring the true sources of influence and allowing well-resourced but anonymous interests to shape political debate and outcomes.
Bryce Edwards: “NZ First celebrates ‘victory’ over the Serious Fraud Office, but questions remain”, NZ Herald, 28 Mar 2024.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/political-roundup-nz-first-celebrates-victory-over-the-serious-fraud-office-but-questions-remain/5V47KG6CUNFERM6YXWLJPHJWGM/
Summary: Column on the conclusion of New Zealand’s largest political donations court case – the NZ First Foundation trial. Edwards explains that the Court of Appeal quashed the Serious Fraud Office’s case on technical grounds, leading Winston Peters to claim vindication. However, Edwards questions the outcome, noting uncertainty over what the case means for donation law, and he suggests lingering concerns about how political funds were handled despite the legal “victory.”
Bryce Edwards. “Following the political money.” 8 May 2024.
URL: https://democracyproject.nz/2024/05/08/bryce-edwards-following-the-political-money/
In this post-election roundup, Edwards follows the trail of donations behind the 2023 general election. He reports that nearly $25 million was donated to parliamentary parties over the election cycle, with the incoming governing parties (National, ACT and NZ First) receiving the lion’s share. Edwards uses the data to illustrate which business sectors and interest groups bankrolled each party, arguing that “to understand power and influence, you must follow the money.” The annotation underscores how donation disclosures, while incomplete, reveal the policy preferences of those writing the biggest cheques – from corporates to wealthy individuals – and it reinforces calls for stricter transparency. The article lists the largest individual donations, discusses trends in anonymous donations, MP tithes, candidate donations, loans, donors contributing to multiple parties, and the significant presence of donors from the housing and property development sector.
Bryce Edwards: “Why NZ First shouldn’t get any apologies for the SFO’s failed prosecution.” 28 March 2024.
URL: https://democracyproject.nz/2024/03/28/bryce-edwards-why-nz-first-shouldnt-get-any-apologies-for-the-sfos-failed-prosecution/
Summary: Following the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the SFO case against the NZ First Foundation, Edwards argues against calls for the state to apologize to Winston Peters. He notes that while the court dismissed the case on a technicality regarding the defendants’ knowledge, it upheld that the donations should have been declared under the Electoral Act. Edwards emphasizes that the verdict doesn’t resolve New Zealand’s serious problems with undisclosed political donations.
Bryce Edwards: “How serious is National MP David MacLeod’s failure to declare $178,000 in donations?” NZ Herald, 21 May 2024.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/how-serious-is-national-mp-david-macleod-failure-to-declare-178000-in-donations-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/IU42LKPY55DYNMVIENLBWXYCTA/
Summary: Edwards examines National MP David MacLeod’s failure to declare $178,000 in donations, arguing this constitutes breaking the law rather than a mere mistake. He analyses the legal implications, noting that MacLeod admitted knowledge of the donations but failed to declare them, which could constitute a “corrupt practice” that automatically vacates a parliamentary seat. The article discusses the Electoral Commission’s likely referral to police and the broader implications for electoral law compliance.
Bryce Edwards: “Te Pāti Māori’s ongoing financial accountability failures” 17 April 2025.
URL: https://theintegrityinstitute.substack.com/p/integrity-briefing-te-pati-maoris
Summary: Examines Te Pāti Māori’s ongoing failures to comply with electoral finance laws. Edwards argues Te Pāti Māori cannot claim moral authority while repeatedly flouting transparency laws, and that all parties should be held to the same standards regardless of their political mission. He calls for the party to demonstrate genuine compliance with electoral finance laws.
Bryce Edwards: “Do political donations influence which businesses get fast-tracked?” 13 May 2025.
URL: https://theintegrityinstitute.substack.com/p/integrity-briefing-do-political-donations
Summary: Edwards analyses data revealing that numerous companies who donated to parties in government also applied for fast-track resource consents, raising serious conflict of interest concerns. He examines specific cases where businesses gave $50,000 donations to parties before receiving special exemptions, using 2024 donation disclosures to highlight the problematic intersection between political donations and government decision-making processes.
Part Two: Investigative Journalism and Media Commentary
Nicky Hager: The Hollow Men: A study in the politics of deception. Craig Potton Publishing, 2006.
ISBN: 978-1877333620
Summary: This landmark book, based on a significant cache of leaked internal National Party documents and emails from sources within the party, provides an unprecedented look at the National Party’s strategies and operations in the lead-up to the 2005 general election under leader Don Brash. Hager alleges that the party’s funding was substantially drawn from prominent New Zealand businessmen, whose identities and relationships with the party are documented. The book also details the party leadership’s knowledge of, and coordination with, the Exclusive Brethren’s controversial pamphlet campaign, despite initial public denials. The Hollow Men exposes the mechanics of campaign funding, the influence of major donors, hidden alliances, and the strategic thinking behind political messaging, offering a disturbing insight into modern political practices and the pursuit of power. (15)
Matt Shand: “NZ First Foundation dodging electoral rules? Records suggest breaches.” Stuff, 18 November 2019.
Summary: This groundbreaking investigation by Waikato Times reporter Matt Shand exposed the New Zealand First Foundation scandal using leaked financial records. Shand revealed that almost $500,000 in political donations appeared to have been hidden in what he described as a “secret slush fund” controlled by Winston Peters’ advisers. The story detailed how the foundation collected donations from wealthy donors including food manufacturers, racing interests, forestry owners, and property developers, then used the money to finance election campaigns and pay party expenses without proper disclosure.
Guyon Espiner: “Mysterious foundation loaning New Zealand First money.” RNZ, 13 November 2019.
URL: Referenced in: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/428454/exclusive-the-secret-case-of-the-nz-first-foundation
Summary: The first major investigation into the NZ First Foundation by RNZ’s Guyon Espiner, which helped break the story alongside Matt Shand’s reporting. Espiner’s investigation examined the mysterious loans from the foundation to the NZ First party and raised questions about transparency and compliance with electoral law. This story was based on documents obtained through secretive sources and helped expose one of New Zealand’s biggest political donations scandals.
Guyon Espiner and Kate Newton: “Donations and declarations: The NZ First Foundation explained.” RNZ, 3 February 2020.
Summary: A detailed follow-up investigation by RNZ examining how money flowed into and out of the New Zealand First Foundation. Between April 2017 and August 2019, nearly $500,000 was deposited into the Foundation’s account by donors, while the Foundation spent more than $425,000 paying party bills including campaign advertising, political consultants’ fees, and running the party’s website. The piece analyzes whether any of this needed to be declared under electoral law.
Guyon Espiner and Kate Newton: “Wealthy and powerful NZ First Foundation donors revealed.” RNZ, 3 February 2020.
URL: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/408785/wealthy-and-powerful-nz-first-foundation-donors-revealed
Summary: This investigation revealed that the NZ First Foundation received donations from entities connected to some of New Zealand’s wealthiest business people in amounts just under the disclosure threshold. The story exposed how New Zealand’s richest man, Graeme Hart, donated nearly $30,000 through companies in two amounts that each fell just $5.01 short of the $15,000 disclosure level, highlighting strategic donation splitting to avoid transparency requirements.
Guyon Espiner: “Exclusive: The secret case of the NZ First Foundation.” RNZ, 15 October 2020.
URL: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/428454/exclusive-the-secret-case-of-the-nz-first-foundation
Summary: An in-depth behind-the-scenes account of Espiner’s investigation into the NZ First Foundation, detailing the secretive methods used to obtain documents and the intense legal and political pressure that followed. The piece reveals how sources provided information through elaborate security measures and describes Winston Peters’ claims that party supporters photographed journalists to prove inappropriate behavior, which Peters later walked back.
Part Three: Academic and Research Resources
Edwards, Bryce: ‘Political Finance and Inequality in New Zealand’, New Zealand Sociology, vol. 23, no. 2, 2008, pp. 4–17.
URL: https://liberation.typepad.com/files/political-finance-and-inequality-in-new-zealand.pdf
Summary: This early academic paper evaluates the sources of political party funding and their influence on New Zealand’s parliamentary politics. It questions common assumptions about political finance, arguing that while business interests exert considerable influence, this is better understood through a structural analysis of economic power rather than direct financial leverage over political parties via donations. The paper notes a significant shift from traditional funding patterns, where Labour relied on unions and National on business, towards a greater role for individual businesspeople. This shift is contextualized by a dramatic decline in party membership numbers since the 1980s, altering parties’ financial reliance and operational dynamics. The work provides a foundational perspective on the evolving landscape of political finance in New Zealand.
Chapple, Simon & Thomas Anderson. “Who’s donating? To whom? Why? Patterns of party political donations in New Zealand under MMP, 1996–2019.” Policy Quarterly 17(2), May 2021.
This empirical study analyzes Electoral Commission data to map out who donates to New Zealand political parties, which parties benefit, and why. Chapple and Anderson distinguish between large donors (above disclosure thresholds) from 1996–2019 and aggregate smaller donations (2011–2019). The data reveal patterns such as the reliance of major parties on a small number of wealthy contributors and the relative paucity of grassroots donations. The authors discuss motivations ranging from ideological support to seeking influence, and note the increase in corporate and trust donations under MMP. Their findings provide a crucial evidence base, highlighting trends like National’s advantage in attracting big donors and the corresponding policy risks of money-driven influence.
Lisa Marriott and Max Rashbrooke: “Money for Something: Political party funding in Aotearoa New Zealand.” Victoria University of Wellington, 2022.
URL: https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/business/research/researchers/more-featured-researchers/supporting-political-party-funding-law-reform
Summary: A comprehensive research report examining political party funding in New Zealand, highlighting how parties have become increasingly dependent on wealthy donors as membership has declined and campaign costs have risen. The research demonstrates significant funding imbalances between parties and shows that nearly three-quarters of New Zealanders distrust the current funding system. The report recommends reforms including donation caps and greater transparency measures.
Max Rashbrooke and Lisa Marriott: “Tax credits as a mechanism for political party funding in Aotearoa New Zealand: an exploratory study.” Policy Quarterly, 2023.
URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10361146.2023.2209592
Summary: Academic paper exploring the use of tax credits to support political party funding in New Zealand. The research examines how tax credits could incentivize broader participation in political donations while reducing reliance on large donors. The study analyzes advantages including encouraging democratic participation and providing greater financial support to parties, while acknowledging limitations such as requiring financial contributions that not everyone can afford.
Independent Electoral Review: “Final Report.” Ministry of Justice, 2023.
URL: https://electoralreview.govt.nz/
Summary: The comprehensive review of New Zealand’s electoral system that included recommendations for political donations reform. The review recommended a $30,000 limit on donations per person per electoral cycle, expanded state funding for parties, and other measures to create a fairer electoral system. The report acknowledged “risks to public confidence in the electoral system if some people have more access to, or can unduly influence, parties and candidates through political financing.”
Krewel, Mona & Jack Vowles. “The best government money can buy? How New Zealanders feel about political party funding.” Victoria University of Wellington News, 23 Oct 2024.
Summary: Political scientists Krewel and Vowles present findings from the 2023 New Zealand Election Study regarding public perceptions of donations and influence. They report that a large proportion of Kiwis believe big political donations “buy undue influence” over government decisions. The commentary notes New Zealand’s reputation for low corruption stands in contrast to its very permissive donation regime – a dissonance not lost on voters. With companies linked to government projects donating over $500,000 to parties (as an RNZ analysis found), the authors argue public concern is justified. This resource is valuable for understanding the democratic legitimacy angle: it quantifies the trust deficit caused by money in politics, strengthening the case that reform is not only an ethical imperative but also key to restoring voters’ confidence.
