The following “Democracy Briefing” on local government election donations is an abridged version of “Democracy Deep Dive: Who Really pays for local politics?” – which you can read in full here:
--------
The local government election donation returns are in, and they tell a familiar story. Money talks in local government, and it speaks loudest on behalf of those with the most to gain from council decisions. The 2025 campaigns in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin were awash with cash from property developers, corporate magnates and other vested interests.
Big money in the big city
Nowhere was the money gap starker than in Auckland. Incumbent Mayor Wayne Brown raised roughly $617,000, an eye-watering sum that didn’t come from sausage sizzles. His donor list reads like a who’s who of the mega-wealthy: Graeme Hart’s Rank Group dropped $50,000; the Tramco property empire (with massive waterfront land interests) chipped in another $50,000; CP Group and Peninsula Capital each gave $25,000; Golf Warehouse $20,000; Bayleys Real Estate $10,000; and the Park Hyatt Hotel $18,400.
Brown’s only serious challenger, Kerrin Leoni, scraped together about $83,000, which was nearly all from supporters contributing under the $1,500 disclosure limit. Her largest declared donation was $7,576 from Labour activist Greg Presland. Brown out-fundraised her roughly seven to one.
The donors behind Brown’s victory aren’t neutral benefactors. Tramco holds huge leasehold properties in the Viaduct Harbour, where the council is effectively the landlord. Precinct Properties, which gave $10,000, is currently purchasing the council’s downtown carpark building. Golf Warehouse, which contributed $20,000, has offered to redevelop council-owned A.F. Thomas Park. When a company wanting to commercialise public parkland gives $20,000 to the mayor who will decide that parkland’s fate, the message to residents is clear.
Perhaps the most optically challenging donation comes from the AHIL Park Hyatt Hotel, which contributed $18,400. The luxury waterfront hotel is owned by China’s Fuh Wah group. This financial support is compounded by the revelation, reported by Todd Niall in Newsroom, that Fuh Wah’s Auckland office manager, Jean Wen, is employed by Mayor Brown on a $2,000 monthly retainer for “Chinese translation services.”
Brown didn’t just receive money, he acted as kingmaker, donating to “Fix Auckland” candidates. He gave $4,568 to Victoria Short, whose victory over incumbent Wayne Walker (a Brown critic) was celebrated by the mayor as taking out the “Albanian killer.” Brown still has nearly $280,000 left over, and there are no rules governing what he does with it.
Wellington: Establishment consensus and dark money
Wellington’s victor Andrew Little raised funds from a coalition crossing the traditional left-right divide. The unions backed him: Maritime Union, Amalgamated Workers Union, E Tū, and Dairy Workers Union each contributed $5,000. But he also drew support from former National minister Chris Finlayson ($2,000) and property developer Ian Cassels ($5,000). Little spent just under the $60,000 mayoral spending cap and declared all donations above the threshold before voting began.
Runner-up Ray Chung’s campaign offers a stark lesson in “dark money.” His team claimed a war chest of up to $200,000, but when returns were filed, transparency evaporated. Candidates listed a massive chunk of funding ($27,500 in one instance) as coming from “Better Wellington”, effectively a shell entity that obscured original donors. Wellington’s electoral officer queried this practice, demanding the actual names behind the money.
Better Wellington eventually declared $147,000 in donations: Tory Holdings (owned by Oscar-winner Jamie Selkirk) gave $50,000; Tirohanga Ltd gave $35,000; Sir Mark Dunajtschik $25,000; BBV Ltd (property developer Craig Walton) $10,000; and The Thorndon Group $10,000. The donor list also included property investor Eyal Aharoni ($10,000), adding to the sense that major commercial interests were funding the ticket at arm’s length.
Christchurch: Compliance over transparency
Phil Mauger won re-election after refusing to release his donor list during the campaign, deflecting with the legalistic defence that he would “detail every donation after the election, as required.” Voters were asked to re-elect a mayor without knowing who was paying his bills.
His eventual return showed $116,000 in donations. The list is heavy with construction and automotive interests: Bruce and Kaye Miles (car dealership owners) gave $7,000; Miles Yeoman contributed $11,000; Buzz March gave $8,000. Multiple $5,000 contributions came from developers and business owners dealing regularly with council contracts and consents.
Progressive challenger Sara Templeton raised $29,000, roughly matching Mauger’s spending but starting from a far smaller base.
Dunedin: A Flicker of hope
In Dunedin, big money didn’t guarantee victory. Incumbent Jules Radich, backed by local business groups, was ousted after a single term. Challenger Sophie Barker ran a grassroots campaign, saving for three years and spending $26,467.
Meanwhile, unsuccessful candidate Andrew Simms declared campaign costs of $45,000 and stumped up tens of thousands more for his Future Dunedin teammates – a total spend of $158,480 split between nine candidates. In a revealing admission to the Otago Daily Times, Simms said the campaign boosted his car dealership’s profile and sales despite his disappointing result.
The Bottom line
We are witnessing a “plutocratic drift” in our local democracy. The ability to run for office is becoming a privilege of the wealthy or the well-connected. The ability to influence policy is becoming a function of one’s bank balance.
Inequality is baked into this system. The voices of renters, of young families, of the working poor are not backed by $50,000 donations. They are backed by submissions and votes. But in a system where money buys the megaphone, those voices are increasingly drowned out by the amplified demands of the donor class.
There is no suggestion of illegality here. But in politics, the scandal is often what is legal. When developers fund the campaign of the man who leads the council that regulates them, the conflict of interest is structural. It creates a perception that access and influence are commodities that can be purchased. For the average ratepayer, struggling with cost-of-living increases and crumbling infrastructure, the message is clear: you have a vote, but they have the ability to donate big sums.
Local elections determine who controls billions in public assets and shapes the planning rules affecting where and how we live. Those decisions shouldn’t be for sale. Right now, we can’t be sure they aren’t.
Dr Bryce Edwards
Director of the Democracy Project
Further Reading: