Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon debate, but how much money each party has could have more sway on voters than what they say. Photo / TVNZ
OPINION
The wealthy in New Zealand are loading up right-wing parties and positioning them in every way to win the election.
They have set up the political right to run extravagant campaigns that far overshadow the efforts of left-leaning parties. I am concerned New Zealand’s laws permit the wealthy to aid our democratic processes.
From 2021 to August 2023, the donations received by political parties were:
National: $8.3m
Act: $4.2m
Greens: $1.4m
Labour: $1.1m
New Zealand First: $1m
Te Pāti Māori: $100,000
Right-wing parties (National, Act and New Zealand First) have banked 13.5 million. That is five times more than the $2.6m left-wing parties (Labour, Greens and the Māori Party) have raised.
The political right raised $5.20 for every $1 the left raised, creating a difference of more than $10 million. This difference undoubtedly creates a colossal imbalance in the campaigning capacity of the right and the left.
National has received 7.5 times more donations than Labour, and Act has received three times more than the Greens.
Whether it be major or minor parties, the political right has received far more money than the political left.
Investigative journalist Nicky Hager describes the situation before us as “the nearest thing to corruption” and argues that “powerful corporate interests and wealthy New Zealanders that want a government that suits them” have poured money into National and Act to make them more likely to win the election. I concur.
Money makes a real difference. It affects the number of signs parties can afford to put up in each electorate and how many vandalised signs they can afford to repair.
It affects the number of social media ads the party can afford to run and the quality of the ads. It also means that while left-leaning parties rely predominantly on volunteers to phone bank, door-knock, write letters, run social media, put up signs and repair damaged signs, the right can hire staff to do so where they lack volunteers.
Where right-leaning parties can easily afford to feed their volunteers and transport them, left-leaning parties might be unable to do so. Right-leaning parties may also be able to afford to run more community meetings.
These are all critical elements of campaigning, and the wealthy have financially supported the political right to outperform the left on all accounts.
Many countries limit how much a donor can donate to a political party to curtail wealthy individuals’ influence on political parties’ campaigning abilities. Doing so contributes to the efforts to even the playing field between political parties.
An interim report by the Independent Electoral Review warned New Zealand’s electoral laws are “not as fair as they could be”. Businesses can donate unlimited amounts of money to political parties here, and they do.
Overseas studies demonstrate that political parties that raise more money tend to win elections, and research shows donors are aware of this.
The Greens support the introduction of a maximum annual limit for donations, but this hasn’t been made law.
A democracy gives all voters equal influence over an election. We do not have a democracy in New Zealand if wealthy people can hijack our election by handing more money to the parties they want to win.
It is a shame that how much money parties have could have a more considerable sway on voters than the parties’ policies.
Shaneel Shavneel Lal (they/them) was instrumental in the bill to ban conversion therapy in New Zealand. They are a law and psychology student, model and influencer.
Dr Maia Hetaraka: 'Cultural competence' should evolve into genuine cultural understanding.