close
close

The best thing government money can buy? How New Zealanders view political party funding

Posted on by L. Dreeye
The best thing government money can buy? How New Zealanders view political party funding

Companies and shareholders associated with fast-track government projects have provided more than $500,000 in donations to National, ACT and New Zealand First, according to a recent RNZ analysis.

While it is impossible to say whether these companies were included for consideration because of their donations, accusations of possible “undue influence” are inevitably raised.

New Zealand’s reputation for virtually no corruption is not due to our lack of strict regulation of party donations. As Philippa Yasbeck, author of the Helen Clark Foundation report calling for tougher rules to combat the risk of political corruption, said:

Our political integrity and honesty have largely evolved from social norms over many decades. Politicians generally knew what behavior New Zealand society expected of them. Unfortunately, today we naively think that this is enough.

Some political parties seem to pay little attention to the existing rules. The Electoral Commission has warned several parties that large donations are being announced too late.

An independent election review published earlier this year recommended that parties give up access to corporate donations in exchange for increased government funding. Other recommendations included a cap on political donations of NZ$30,000 and a much lower threshold for disclosing donor names.

As you might expect, political parties disagree on how funding should be regulated because their main sources of income differ. The Labor Party welcomes the proposals, although analysis shows its revenue streams would suffer the most if the policies go ahead.

ACT strongly opposes the principle of public funding, although there are already significant public funds supporting parliamentary and party advertising during election campaigns.

What do New Zealanders think?

What about public opinion? Do people think major donors have “undue influence”?

The latest New Zealand Election Survey, conducted following the 2023 election, included a module of questions that provide insight into New Zealanders’ attitudes to potential party funding reforms. The study is a representative sample of nearly 2,000 eligible voters.

What stands out? Many answered “I don’t know” to the questions, which is quite reasonable. The laws governing political parties in New Zealand are complex and of little relevance to most.

However, some clear messages are emerging. Overall, almost most people were concerned about the influence of “big interests.” When asked whether they agreed with the statement: “The New Zealand government is largely run by a few large groups,” 45% agreed and 27% disagreed.

Digging deeper into the data, about 35% of business owners agreed, compared to just under half of people who don’t own a business.

When asked if they believe donors exert “undue influence” on politicians, 43% agreed. Only 18% disagreed. Almost 40% had no opinion on the topic and were either unaware or neutral.

While Labour, Greens and New Zealand voters leaned heavily towards “undue influence”, National and ACT voters were evenly split between “undue influence” and “non-undue influence”.

National voters were also strongly in favor of “don’t know.” About a third of business owners perceived undue influence, compared with about 45% of non-owners.

The 2023 Election Survey also included a question on the Election Survey’s recommendation that corporate groups and trade unions should be banned from making direct donations to political parties: 53% supported the change, while only 17% opposed it.

The Independent Election Review also recommended capping any individual donation at $30,000, with 57% agreeing, compared with 14% who disagreed. While support was strongest among the left and among New Zealand First voters, significant numbers of National and ACT voters also agreed (47% and 44%).

Finally, we asked people’s thoughts on the anonymity of “promoter donations.” Promoters are people or groups registered to advertise during an election campaign on an issue, for or against a political party. They may solicit anonymous donations, which are not subject to the same disclosure requirements as parties.

Only 14% of respondents believed in promoters keeping donations anonymous on a confidential basis, while 47% preferred more transparency. Breaking this opinion down by party vote, some National Assembly and ACT voters preferred transparency over confidentiality, although many were either neutral or answered “don’t know”.

Support for reform

These results indicate that public perceptions of donor undue influence are widespread. While these perceptions are strongest on the left, they also permeate deeply among right-wing voting groups and the business community.

And while political parties have conflicts of interest, the recommendations of an independent election review have significant support among members of the New Zealand public and within the business community across party lines.

Assuming that political parties in a democracy are expected to respond to the concerns and demands of voters, this should give them something to think about when it comes to potential party funding reform.

This article is based on our submission to the Justice Select Committee’s inquiry into the 2023 general election.