Entities linked to projects pushed through the government’s fast track consenting regime have donated more than $1 million to political parties since 2022, with nearly nine out of every ten dollars going to National and NZ First, according to an analysis published this morning by RNZ data journalist Farah Hancock.
In 2025 alone, donors with a direct interest in fast track outcomes gave $400,000 to the two coalition parties, while Labour received just $8,620 from the same pool. The Greens picked up a small amount in earlier cycles but nothing meaningful in the current period.
The fast track regime, introduced by the National-led coalition in 2024, lets an expert panel approve major projects outside the usual Resource Management Act process. Ministers retain a final say on which projects get listed for consideration. So far, 23 fast track projects have been approved. Seven of those are linked to political donors, while one linked project was declined and another was withdrawn.
Among the standout figures is Sir Rod Drury, the Xero founder behind the proposed Coronet Village development at Queenstown. Drury gave $100,000 to National in 2025, on top of $13,500 to National and $5,000 to a Greens candidate in 2023, and $100,000 to ACT in 2022. His Coronet Village proposal, which includes a gondola, a ski area and 780 residential units, has not yet moved to a substantive application stage.
Christchurch’s Carter Group, run by Philip Carter and Tim Glasson, donated $81,608.56 to National in 2025. One of the company’s three proposed fast track projects, the Ryans Road Industrial development, has been approved, while two residential schemes are still in the pipeline.
Property developer Christopher Meehan gave $7,500 to NZ First in 2025, part of total donations of more than $213,000 across the parties over recent years. Both of Meehan’s fast track projects, the Sunfield housing development and the Ayrburn Screen Hub, have been approved.
Victoria University of Wellington academic Max Rashbrooke, who has spent years studying political donations and democracy, told RNZ the pattern was “corrosive” to public trust. He said donations “coming from individuals that go to political parties…then making decisions that directly affect the donors’ commercial interests” was deeply troubling. Rashbrooke is calling for a mandatory five year stand-down period between a donation and any direct government benefit to the donor.
Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop’s office told RNZ that the Cabinet Office routinely issues conflict of interest advice to ministers handling fast track decisions, with ministerial responsibility transferred whenever a conflict is identified. Bishop has recused himself from three projects, but cited personal connections rather than donations as the reason. The Cabinet Manual treats only donations made directly to an individual minister, rather than to their party, as creating a pecuniary conflict of interest, on what officials describe as “pragmatic” grounds.
The Auditor-General has previously warned that the public perception of donation-driven decision making “erodes trust and confidence” in the integrity of consenting outcomes, even where no actual bias is present. That earlier work fed into the first round of reporting last year, when the same regime was linked to about $500,000 in donations.
The latest figures will sharpen long-running concerns about how the fast track regime operates. Critics argue that combining ministerial discretion with no requirement to disclose donor interests inside the consenting process creates an environment in which large donors can quietly benefit from the system without breaching any rule. Supporters of fast track say the regime simply removes years of unnecessary delay from infrastructure and housing decisions, and that party donations are publicly declared and audited under existing electoral law.
Today’s release lands one day before Budget 2026, which Finance Minister Nicola Willis is expected to use to push further on the government’s infrastructure agenda. Labour and the Greens are likely to use the donation figures to argue that the fast track regime is producing outcomes that favour large donors, while National and NZ First will point to consenting timelines as the central justification for the law.
New Zealanders heading into the 2026 general election can compare the parties’ policies on planning, donations transparency and infrastructure using Newswire’s 2026 voting tool, which maps each party’s stated positions across the major issues.
What do you make of the donation pattern, and should there be a mandatory stand-down period between political donations and government decisions that affect the donor’s interests? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
This article was written by AI, briefed to report the facts, hopefully without some of the bias people bring to the job 🙂
Leave a Reply