A friend mentioned over coffee that a shadowy organisation was controlling policy decisions worldwide. When I asked who, she said, “The Atlas Network.”
I’d never heard of it. It sounded like conspiracy theory nonsense to me.
Then I looked into it. Turns out the Atlas Network exists, operates in over 100 countries, and is remarkably open about what it does. In an article titled “Why Business Needs Think Tanks,” Atlas Network’s former President and CEO, Alejandro Chafuen and former Vice President Leonard Liggio described think tanks as “the most effective, yet subtle, vehicles for influencing the development of public policy” that work to “win the respect of journalists and government officials.”
Not a conspiracy theory. Just a well-documented strategy that most New Zealanders know nothing about.
The question isn’t whether this network exists or operates globally. The question is whether New Zealanders understand just how systematically our policy environment is being shaped by overseas-funded organisations with a very specific ideological agenda.
Let’s be clear about what “subtle vehicles” means in practice.
Traditional lobbying is obvious. A corporation wants a regulatory change; it hires lobbyists and makes its case. You can see it coming. You know who’s pushing and why.
The Atlas approach is different. They fund local think-tanks that position themselves as independent research organisations. These groups produce reports, get quoted in the media, appear at select committees, and gradually shift what’s considered acceptable in policy debates.
The genius is in the perception. When a local think-tank releases a report, it looks like homegrown analysis. When their researchers appear on the radio or television, they’re presented as independent experts. The international funding and ideological coordination remain largely invisible to the public.
Is this sophisticated policy influence or is it something that circumvents genuine democratic debate?
We don’t need to speculate about how this plays out. Australia offers a recent case study.
During the Voice to Parliament referendum, Atlas-linked organisations were prominent in the “No” campaign. The Institute of Public Affairs, an Atlas partner, produced research and commentary that shaped the debate. Whether you supported Yes or No isn’t the point here.
The point is that a constitutional referendum—one of the most fundamental expressions of democratic will—had significant input from organisations connected to a US-based network with global ambitions.
Did Australian voters know they were being influenced by internationally coordinated advocacy? Did they understand the funding sources and ideological connections behind the “independent” research they were reading?
The UK experience adds another layer.
Multiple investigations have documented connections between Atlas Network partners and Brexit advocacy. Again, whether you think Brexit was brilliant or disastrous is beside the point.
The issue is democratic transparency. When think-tanks with international backing and coordination present themselves as local voices in a national debate, something fundamental shifts in how democracy functions.
So where does this leave us?
Atlas Network describes itself as working to create a “free, prosperous, and peaceful world” through “individual liberty, property rights, limited government, and free markets.” They now operate nearly 600 partner organisations across more than 100 countries. In 2024, they distributed over US$10 million in grants—double what they gave in 2020.
New Zealand has two Atlas Network partners: the Taxpayers’ Union and the New Zealand Initiative. In 2022, Atlas distributed US$75,800 (approximately NZ$123,000) to Australia and New Zealand combined. By 2023, this dropped to US$62,000, according to an Atlas Network letter to the Australian Parliament.
More recent regional breakdowns have not been made publicly available. The Taxpayers’ Union acknowledges Atlas funding has accounted for “one or two percent” of its budget, primarily for travel grants and professional development.
The Taxpayers’ Union, founded in 2013 by lawyer Jordan Williams and pollster David Farrar, claims over 200,000 supporters and campaigns against government spending and waste. Williams chairs the World Taxpayers Associations and received Atlas Network fellowship training in 2018.
The New Zealand Initiative is a business-funded think tank formed in 2012 from the merger of the New Zealand Business Roundtable and the New Zealand Institute. Funded by about 70 major companies, including banks, supermarkets, and energy firms, it advocates for free-market policies across education, housing, and economic reform. While an official Atlas partner, the Initiative states it receives no direct funding from Atlas Network.
That might sound modest. But the real value isn’t the money—it’s the training, the coordination, the international playbook, and the legitimacy that comes from being part of a global network.
These organisations produce research on everything from resource management reform to healthcare policy to climate change. Some of this research is valuable. Some raise legitimate questions about government overreach.
But here’s what troubles me: How many New Zealanders realise these organisations are part of a global network? How many journalists who interview their spokespeople mention international funding and ideological coordination? How many politicians citing their research understand the broader context?
Questioning government spending and challenging policy orthodoxy is legitimate. But it should be done transparently. The Atlas model works precisely because it obscures these connections—the “subtle” part isn’t just about tactics, it’s about keeping the public in the dark about who’s really driving the conversation.
Free market economics has merits. Limited government has merits. These are legitimate positions in democratic debate.
But democracy requires that we know who’s making the arguments and why. It requires transparency about funding, coordination, and ultimate objectives. It requires that influence be visible so citizens can weigh arguments with full context.
When a US-based network coordinates policy advocacy across dozens of countries, using local organisations as front groups—sorry, as “subtle vehicles”—that’s not healthy democratic debate. That’s sophisticated manipulation of democratic processes.
The Atlas Network would argue they’re simply promoting ideas they believe in. Fair enough. But why the emphasis on being “subtle”? Why the strategy of “winning respect” rather than making transparent arguments? Why the focus on appearing local when the funding and coordination are international?
New Zealand needs transparency requirements for think-tanks and policy advocacy organisations. Not to shut down debate—to make it honest.
Disclose international funding sources above reasonable thresholds. Disclose coordination with overseas networks. Require media and parliamentary submissions to include this context.
Let these organisations make their arguments. But let New Zealanders understand the full picture of who’s behind those arguments and what broader agenda they’re part of.
We’re a small country with a strong democratic tradition. We pride ourselves on transparency and fairness. We should be the last place where overseas interests can quietly shape our policy debates through “subtle vehicles.”
The Atlas Network’s playbook works because we haven’t been paying attention. Time to change that.
Our democracy isn’t for sale—but only if we’re willing to ask who’s shopping.
Steve Baron is a New Zealand-based political commentator and author. He holds a BA with a double major in Economics and Political Science from the University of Waikato and an Honours Degree in Political Science from Victoria University of Wellington. A former businessman in the advertising industry, he founded the political lobby group Better Democracy NZ. https://stevebaron.co.nz
Hemi says:
Kia ora Steve, this is eye-opening stuff. As someone running a business here in Rotorua, I’ve noticed how certain policy discussions seem to come out of nowhere with slick reports backing them up. Now I’m wondering about the whakapapa of those ideas. What concerns me most is how this could undermine genuine local voices, especially tangata whenua perspectives that are already fighting to be heard in policy spaces. The subtle influence you’re describing is particularly problematic because it can drown out community-based solutions with overseas ideologies that might not fit our unique bicultural context. Ka pai for shining a light on this – transparency around funding and influence should be basic democratic practice.
Murray says:
This is precisely the sort of media literacy and critical thinking we should be teaching our young people, Steve. In my experience as an educator, students were often surprised to learn how policy ideas travel and who funds the research behind seemingly neutral reports. The Atlas Network’s approach reminds me of the way certain educational philosophies were promoted in the 1980s and 90s – well-funded, coordinated campaigns that appeared grassroots but were anything but. My students used to ask why some think tanks got so much media coverage while university researchers struggled to get heard, and frankly, funding and professional marketing often made the difference. What concerns me most is the transparency issue – New Zealanders deserve to know when policy recommendations come with significant overseas backing, regardless of whether we agree with the ideology or not. This isn’t about left versus right; it’s about informed democratic participation.
Sarah says:
This is fascinating and honestly quite concerning from a generational perspective – my peers and I are inheriting policy frameworks that may have been shaped by overseas interests without us even knowing it. I’ve noticed similar patterns in other countries where I have friends – think tanks that sound local but are part of broader international networks pushing specific agendas. Steve, do you have specific examples of New Zealand think tanks that are Atlas Network affiliates, and how can we as voters actually identify when “independent research” might not be so independent? It feels like we need much better transparency around funding sources for organisations that regularly influence our political discourse.
Linda J says:
Steve, this rings true from my time on council – we’d regularly receive submissions and briefings from various research organisations, and frankly, most councillors didn’t dig into who was funding them. The local government sector is particularly vulnerable to this because we’re always looking for credible research to inform policy decisions, especially on complex issues like infrastructure financing or regulatory frameworks. What concerns me isn’t necessarily that overseas networks are involved – ideas cross borders – but the lack of transparency in the funding sources when these groups appear before select committees or council meetings. From a procedural standpoint, I think we need stronger disclosure requirements, similar to how lobbyists must register. That said, Steve, I’d caution against painting all think-tank research with the same brush – some genuinely independent analysis does exist, and councillors need access to diverse perspectives to make informed decisions. The real issue is ensuring ratepayers and citizens know who’s behind the advice their representatives are receiving.
Trev says:
Look mate, I don’t give a toss about some Atlas Network conspiracy – what I care about is getting houses built without jumping through fifty hoops first. If these think tanks are pushing for less red tape and faster consents, then good on them. I’ve got clients waiting 8 months just to get a bloody building consent approved while families are living in cars. Steve, you’re worried about overseas influence but our own councils are doing a fine job of strangling the construction industry all by themselves.
Priya says:
This really resonates with me as someone who’s watched policy debates shift over the years since I migrated here. What strikes me most is how this “subtle influence” approach actually undermines one of the things I’ve always admired about New Zealand democracy – the relatively transparent way policy gets debated in public. Coming from India where influence networks can be quite opaque, I initially appreciated how straightforward NZ’s political processes seemed. But if overseas-funded organisations are systematically shaping what gets discussed without clear disclosure, that’s concerning regardless of whether you agree with their ideology or not. The issue isn’t really left vs right politics – it’s about citizens knowing who’s funding the voices in our democratic conversations.
Stu says:
Had a couple at the bar last week going on about “dark money” controlling everything – turns out they might’ve been onto something. Thing is Steve, whether it’s Atlas Network pushing free market stuff or union-backed think tanks pushing the other way, they’re all playing the same game of dressing up advocacy as “independent research.” What gets me is how many punters don’t realise that every expert wheeled out on TV probably has someone’s agenda behind them.
Don says:
Steve, you’ve uncovered something here that us rural folk have been feeling for years… policies getting made by people who’ve never set foot on a working farm but somehow know what’s best for us. Whether it’s the Atlas Network or just Wellington bureaucrats listening to the wrong voices the result’s the same and regulations written by city folk who think sheep are just fluffy lawn ornaments. What gets my goat is when these “independent” experts rock up to select committees spouting theory while we’re dealing with the practical reality of trying to run a business under their bright ideas. Good on you for following the money trail and showing us who’s really pulling the strings behind all this policy theatre.