Big political donations have hit $7.4m this election year. Are the rules tight enough?
- Written by: Weekend Times
With polling day still a month away, large political donations declared in 2026 have reached about NZ$7.4 million, already surpassing the total for 2023.
Of election-year donations above $20,000
that parties must disclose to the Electoral Commission, the ACT Party leads with $2.35 million from 48 donors, followed closely by National on $2.29 million. Labour has received $890,301 and New Zealand First $833,000.
Political funding doesn’t necessarily reflect electoral support. ACT, which won 8.6% of the party vote in 2023, has attracted nearly seven times as much in large donations this year as the Green Party, which won 11.6% last election.
This surge in donations has renewed debate over New Zealand’s political funding rules. Unlike some comparable countries, New Zealand places no overall cap on how much a person or company can donate to a political party.
The debate also reflects concerns about whether large donations give wealthy individuals and organisations greater access to, or influence over, political decision-makers.
International research has found governments can be more responsive to affluent citizens and organised interests than to people with fewer resources. New Zealand research has also examined the access and influence sought by major political donors.
Similar concerns were raised by the 2023 Independent Electoral Review, which warned of risks to electoral integrity and public confidence where donations or loans could give some people undue influence over parties and candidates.
The Greens and Opportunity have now proposed a $30,000 cap per donor per election cycle, a ban on company donations and disclosure of donations above $1,000.
Against this backdrop, we examined which groups and industries have funded New Zealand’s political parties – and what options exist to tighten the rules.
Where the donations come from
Electoral Commission data analysed by RNZ shows some significant differences in donation sources across political parties this year. Organisations account for 62% of National’s large donations, compared with 35% for ACT and 26% for Labour.
Individuals account for most large donations to other parties, including 69% for New Zealand First and all of those received by the Greens and Te Pāti Māori.
The largest declared donation so far this year was $500,000 from Rank Group, owned by billionaire businessman Graeme Hart, to National. Rank Group has given $700,000 across National and ACT this year.
In our own analysis, we examined which industries funded New Zealand political parties between 2019 and 2025 and found distinct patterns in where their financial support came from.
National received its largest contributions from donors associated with real estate, manufacturing, investment, finance, agriculture and fisheries. Act benefited heavily from real estate, investment and agriculture, while New Zealand First also received significant funding from these sectors and fisheries.
The pattern was different elsewhere. Labour’s largest sources included professionals, party personnel and businesses interested in renewable energy and sustainable enterprises, agriculture and transport.
The Greens received significant funding from MPs, personnel and party members and businesses focused on green-growth. Te Pāti Māori was funded predominantly by party members and supporters.
We can’t draw a direct line between individual donations and particular policies from these findings. But some parties receive significant funding from industries affected by government decisions – an important consideration in the debate over donation limits.
How New Zealand compares
Other democracies have imposed, or are moving towards, tougher controls on who can donate to political parties or how much they can give.
Canada bans corporate donations at the federal level and limits individual contributions. Australia is introducing a A$50,000 annual cap on donations to a single recipient from January 2027, along with a lower disclosure threshold and limits on election spending.
The UK is also moving to tighten its political finance rules, particularly around foreign money and company donations. Its reforms come amid renewed scrutiny of large political gifts and concerns about overseas influence.
New Zealand’s rules also allow some donations to be made without the recipient party knowing the donor’s identity, through the Electoral Commission’s protected-disclosure scheme.
This year, National has received more than $300,000 through the scheme, while Opportunity, New Zealand First and ACT have also received protected donations.
What could New Zealand do?
Calls to tighten New Zealand’s rules predate this year’s surge in political donations.
The 2023 Independent Electoral Review recommended banning donations and loans from companies and other organisations and limiting individual donations to each party to $30,000 per election cycle. It also called for stricter rules around anonymous donations and increased state funding for election campaigns.
These recommendations – broadly in line with some policies that parties are proposing this election – were ultimately not adopted.
Greater public funding is another option. New Zealand already provides some state funding for election broadcasting, with $4.1 million allocated to parties for the 2026 election.
Expanding that approach would come at a cost to taxpayers. But greater public funding could reduce parties’ reliance on large private donors, one of the aims of the reforms recommended by the Independent Electoral Review.
With record large sums flowing to political parties this year, the debate over who funds New Zealand politics – and under what rules – is unlikely to end on election day.
From the cost of living to how best to tackle climate change, the coming election involves some big choices.
This article is part of The Conversation’s Election 2026 series: expert analysis of the major policy debates and the big challenges New Zealand’s next government will face.
Timothy Kirpal Kuhner has received funding from the Marsden Fund, Royal Society Te Apārangi.
Ben Dekker and Maria Armoudian do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
