The recent Democracy Forum prompted a thoughtful exchange of views on the state of New Zealand’s democracy.
Sir Peter Gluckman (ONZ, KNZM, FRSNZ, FMedSci, FRS, FISC), Director of Koi Tū: The Centre for Informed Futures and President of the International Science Council, was unable to participate for personal reasons but submitted these thoughts.
At the heart of the conversation was a central question: Is there a real threat to New Zealand’s democracy arising from unequal access to those in power?
The answer, perhaps unsurprisingly, is not straightforward.
Democracy itself is a complex concept. Focusing on liberal parliamentary democracy as we know it, several broader challenges stand out—many of which go beyond the issue of access alone.
Trust in representative democracy is under strain. This is driven not just by questions of access, but by the behaviour of political parties, particularly in election years. Too often, political discourse leans toward point-scoring rather than collaboration in the national interest. While opposition parties play a vital role in holding governments to account, this can be done in ways that are constructive rather than purely rhetorical.
At the same time, New Zealand’s MMP (Mixed-Member Proportional) system is operating in a very different environment from the one it was designed for. The rise of social media has shifted the dynamics of political engagement, often amplifying more extreme voices and allowing the “tail to wag the dog.” This pattern is visible across many liberal democracies.
Closely linked to this is declining trust in institutions, including the media. Survey data suggests that New Zealanders now report lower levels of trust in media than even Americans—a sobering comparison. The behaviour of both politicians and media commentators can contribute to this erosion of trust.
Another area of concern is the quality of public consultation. In many cases, consultation processes feel superficial. Select committee processes, while intended to provide meaningful engagement, are often constrained by time and limited technical support. Submissions—even highly technical ones—may receive only a few minutes of attention before being cut off. The pace imposed by the three-year electoral cycle further compounds this, and the result can be growing public cynicism.
On the specific issue of access to decision-makers, there is recognition that inequalities do exist. New Zealand’s lobbying rules are relatively loose, and there is significant involvement from recently retired MPs. This creates the perception—and sometimes the reality—that those with the resources to engage experienced lobbyists may have an advantage.
At the same time, access is not a simple issue. In practice, individuals with wealth or influence often gain entry through informal channels, such as social networks and events. However, access is also expected—and often appropriate—for leaders of major companies, as well as for those heading NGOs, think tanks, and universities. The challenge lies in ensuring that such access is balanced and transparent.
International examples also shape public perceptions. High-profile cases overseas have reinforced a growing suspicion that wealth can translate into influence, privileged access, or the ability to work around established rules. While New Zealand is generally seen as having strong integrity systems, concerns about more subtle forms of influence and “petty corruption” remain.
Stepping back, however, these issues—while important—may be symptoms of a larger challenge. The more fundamental question is how New Zealand’s model of parliamentary democracy can adapt and remain resilient in the social media age. In that context, concerns about access, while real, may be secondary to broader shifts in how democratic systems function and how trust is built and maintained.
