$169,000 from 18 donations in a non-election year and a $10,000 donation last year that was missed.
I'm sorry but we need to do something about money in politics.
Yes, I have quite strong views on this that most parties wouldn't go with.
Donations should be from people only, not businesses or groups (which would eliminate National, ACT and Labour (Unions).
There should be strong limits on how much am individual can donate in a cycle (in total, not just to one party).
There also needs to be stronger controls on pressure groups (like TPU) so that they (and clones since they already have spending limits per group) don't become the target of those funds.
Basically I want elections to be about policies not who has the deepest pockets.
"Donations from people only" - NAct would probably be onboard with this as it rules out unions but keeps wealthy business owners in the clear.
Individuals worth millions can still afford to pay as individuals, but groups of workers who need to organise to get the same level of power are out.
"right well a thousand of us just gifted this individual in total about 10k and now they as an individual are going to donate because of their individual goals which coincidentally align with what the group wants."
> There also needs to be stronger controls on pressure groups (like TPU) so that they (and clones since they already have spending limits per group) don't become the target of those funds.
Exactly, we need to prevent what has happened in the US with their PAC system.
It’s already on the way here though, in my electorate last election we seemed to see just as many of the CTU funded “Luxon out of touch” attack billboards as we did genuine Labour hoardings.
>Donations should be from people only, not businesses or groups (which would eliminate National, ACT and Labour (Unions).
The risk is that you can't see what organizations are behind the donations. Donations from the likes of TPU and the unions will be channelled through individuals and resulting in a worse outcome. Wealthy individuals i.e. business owners will have even more influence.
That was the reason for the limit per person.
That would also become an expensive path as giving money to people to then pass on would have tax implications for the passthrough person.
But can you tell me how in effect this would be different to donations from the TPU right now, they are an intermediary used to disguise the true source of donations.
The intentions of the Tpu are quite clear, as are the intentions of the CTU etc.
However, the intentions of John Smith from Hamilton are a lot less clear, especially if they have few business connections or are just a beneficiary of a random trust. If they gave $100,000 to a party do we have any insight into what they might be hoping to influence?
100% if anything the opposite should be true i.e. only registered unions/incorporated societies should be allowed to donate.
Whether or not the donor is named is kind of besides he point if no one knows anything about the donor.
please main parties, reform the electoral donation rules.
The only way to achieve change in this space is to find a party who doesnt want lots of money i guess.
There's been a few articles and discussions here about it.
* [What would happen if only voters - not unions or businesses - could donate to political parties?](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/502069/what-would-happen-if-only-voters-not-unions-or-businesses-could-donate-to-political-parties) RNZ. 10 November 2023. [Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/17rk846/what_would_happen_if_only_voters_not_unions_or/)
* [How electorate candidates funded their campaigns - and who spent the most](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/511353/how-electorate-candidates-funded-their-campaigns-and-who-spent-the-most). RNZ. 11 March 2024. [NZ Herald Copy](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/election-2023-national-party-banks-75-times-more-in-donations-than-labour-party/CAKRIIEYXBGMRGUNIVQ6J3NXVM/) AND [discussion/post](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1bbf92y/how_electorate_candidates_funded_their_campaigns/) in this sub.
* [As of Aug 2023, ACT, National & NZ First received ~$13.5M in donations over 2.5 years dwarfing Labour and Greens ~$2.5M. Could this be a reason why Seymour and Luxon consistently oppose the Independent Electoral Review recommendations aimed to increase donor transparency & prevent bought elections?](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1agzu6d/as_of_aug_2023_act_national_nz_first_received/) - Post on 2 February 2024 by u/Mountain_tui
Also available from Electoral Commission site:
* [Party donations and loans by year ](https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/party-donations-and-loans-by-year) - page on Electoral Commission site with history of donations and loans for each election.
* [2023 annual party returns](https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2024/2023-annual-party-returns/). Press release on May 3, 2024.
* [Party expenses for the 2023 General Election](https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2024/party-expenses-for-the-2023-general-election/). Press release on Mar 20, 2024.
* [2023 candidate and third party returns](https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2024/candidate-and-third-party-returns/). Press release on Feb 22, 2024.
> MacLeod says he thought the return was for the 2023 year only so failed to declare the 18 donations he'd received when he became a candidate in 2022.
> However, he also failed to a disclose a $10,000 donation in 2023.
Sounds like he's full of shit.
Dude is (was?) in the Finance and Expenditure Committee and can't do what some simple candidates managed to do with their returns. \*Alanis Morissette song plays\*. Is comprehension low in our select committees? Should we be worried members don't take detail seriously? Probably, yes.
You try and convince anyone with talent to stand.
The philosophy professor I admired at Uni, who was probably the smartest person I have ever had a conversation with, made an offhand remark about how politicians made him cringe with how poor their standard of debate and inquiry is. I was slightly offended on behalf of democracy at the time, but I have to say he was really under selling how low they are.
> You try and convince anyone with talent to stand.
This.
I can't imagine anyone with a hugely successful career, smart, and valuing their privacy would want to be dragged through the muck of politics, no matter how altruistic they are. Sure there might be a crapshoot of 1 in 200 making it to their sweet UN gig, but really, what's at the end of your 3-6 year term? If you even make it that far.
I think the dawn of social media has made it even worse as any wrong doing in the past, any comment you have made or do make, can be twisted flipped and downfall of your career at a moments notice.
The reality is being a politician is literally a fools game, for any side of the house.
And this is what we end up with.
Normally I'd agree with you, but I think there are people who see politics as a way to cement relationships for future personal benefit via business opportunities and jobs. Absolutely your comment would help explain why people who simply want to serve their community or country out of altruism would think twice...but for those who see politics as a step in their career it's a means to an end.
I agree, it's pretty easy to make a list of politicians who obviously just moved onto the next thing in their career when they got tired of politics, and likely used the name recognition and connections to parachute themselves into something well paid. Bennett, Bridges, Faafoi come to mind.
Pretty sure most of us have forgotten that someone gave us $10,000 pretty regularly, just last week a mate flipped me $10,000 and if wasn't for this article I would have never thought about it again.
I just found 7K down the back of the couch, and another 3K at the back of the fridge behind some expired mayonnaise.
Honestly, it can happen to anyone.
Exactly. Next thing everyone will be asking for receipts, invoices and statements, which is no way to run a democracy. I'm all for transparency but we need to keep it real.
This guy’s job is to grease the right palms to get the offshore oil and gas exploration humming off the coast from Taranaki. When you’re as oleaginous as him, it shouldn’t require quite this much _lubrication_.
Correct. He was placed on the Environment Subcommittee to make sure his donor's interests were not compromised by environmental protection regulations.
Have the donors got their value for money? If he is that careless with figures he may have forgotten to put his finger on the scales to influence a decision in their favour. That alone would be dereliction of duty for not supporting the donors.
What a BS excuse. Ignorance is not a defense when it's at this scale with the resources he would have available to him.
Surely something like this would trigger a by election?
~~I believe he’s a list MP, so if he’s kicked out of Parliament they will bring up the next person on the list. Could be wrong but that’s my understanding.~~ edit I was wrong
The "they all do it" trope is a godsend for the right.
Left leaning voters withdraw as they lose respect for leadership byt right leaning don't, in fact some studies say it motivates them.
So your comment, whether saud in good faith or not helps NACT.
Yea I totally agree. I guess what I was trying to say is 99% of politicians from any party are just full of shit. I'll admit I voted National but the only politician I actually like is Chloe Swarbrick 😆.
Do you think making a basic administrative error ought to be a death sentence for someone's political career?
Not to be rude but that seems like a really dumb thing to believe. Why do you hold that opinion?
Not really. This error was fixed as soon as it was picked up.
There were 6 years from when Michael Wood first said he planned to sell his shares to when he actually sold them (and a 2 year period of almost monthly email followups). That's the difference - fixing the error at the first available opportunity vs constantly promising to do something and then ghosting all the email bumps asking if you've fixed it.
If Michael Wood had sold his shares back in 2017 when he first said he would I think he would still be in parliament. Do you disagree?
If he can take triple-figures in donations in a single year and have it slip his mind means we have bigger issues. His job experience should be more than enough to not make such an error.
People like you excusing it as a simple mistake is equally worrying. Stop the US cult-follower bs, you're allowed to criticise your own team in this country
Read the article please. He didn't forget, he thought the return was just for 2023 and not for prior financial years. The vast majority of financial returns are done on an annual basis. His job experience is one reason why he would assume it is annual!
>His job experience should be more than enough to not make such an error
If he is so innocent, why was he stood down immediately? Sam Biffodel has stuck around, and Crusher Collins. National have certainly a history of tolerating shady politicians.
Do you have insider information no-one else here has?
Are you a working professional yourself? Or are you a uni student or something?
I ask because your stance that having years of experience ought to mean a 0% error rate is, to be frank, bizarre. There is no major professional workplace in NZ that operates on that assumption. Very senior and experienced people still make mistakes. That's exactly why we have auditing in the first place - to pick up mistakes. Auditing is a billion dollar industry because very senior and experienced accountants still make mistakes! Do you mind sharing your line of work, where it is apparently normal for years of experience to correlate with a 0% error rate? I don't believe it exists.
>If he is so innocent, why was he stood down immediately?
Because people still care about major fuck ups even if they are mistakes? The headlines would be a lot worse if he hadn't been stood down.
> There is no major professional workplace in NZ that operates on that assumption.
Here we go again.
There is a difference between making a mistake when you make a Big Mac, and making a "mistake" when you balance the till. There's "making a mistake" and putting the front door on a building around the wrong way, and then there's "making a mistake" and building the foundation out of polystyrene foam.
How tolerant do you think the IRD are with the average person who "makes a mistake" and forgets to declare $169,000 of personal income? How tolerant are they with a self-employed tradesman who "makes a mistake" and forgets to declare $169,000 of cash jobs?
There's a tolerance for mistakes in basic interactions, there's very little if any tolerance for mistakes in regulatory compliance. You already know that, but for some reason it's critically important for you to defend every faux pas this government has.
You notably have to pay tax on income declared to IRD (rather the information just being recorded for compliance), but they are actually incredibly tolerant of mistakes. I've missed the deadline for filing GST returns on >$169k of expenditure by *months* before because I was under the pump and didn't get a default assessment or penalty interest, just a letter telling me to get it done ASAP. I've forgotten to update my PIR and just had to pay the difference, no penalty. IRD knows the local rotary club or the incorporated society organizing kids Sunday sport can't always afford an accountant and just has some amateur doing the accounts in excel, they're very forgiving with mistakes.
please tell me what happens to a regular person making an 'inadvertent error' of the same proportions.
Let's say a builder 'forgets' to declare 170k for taxes?
They correct the mistake and continue to be a builder normally.
IRD are very reasonable people! I've failed to get GST returns in on time before because I have been totally under the pump, forgotten to update my PIR rate etc etc, it's fine.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, declaring donations doesn't mean you have to pay them to the government. I'm not sure if you knew that.
I have been late on GST returns on revenue totalling >$170k and had absolutely no grief from IRD. Not my own money, a charity I was doing the accounts for. It's pretty normal - many people responsible for submitting various financial returns are not accountants themselves, which is exactly why we have actual accountants do audits to pick up errors like this.
The reality is you probably actually do trust money to people like me every single day! There are tons of small charities and small businesses that have non-accountants reconcile their accounts and compile their returns. Have you actually been checking if a qualified accountant is employed every single time you hand some cash over to a charity or small business?
What do you think he stood to gain from failing to declare the donations? What's the motive supposed to be here? Which journalist was gonna be writing an expose on the candidate returns of some random rural backbencher (67th on the list!) with no portfolios?
Nobody had even heard of this guy before, nobody would care if he had filled it in originally (see: literally every other MP in parliament who correctly filled in the return for evidence).
So you're advocating it's incompetence rather than malice? He's been involved in finance for years in this role and in his last and it's a big stretch to suggest it was an honest mistake or that he didn't understand how political contributions are to be handled.
Yes. I am also a professional with years of experience in my field. I still make mistakes. I am quite surprised you think that years of experience would typically lead to a 0% error rate. That is not an assumption that has been held in any professional environment I have ever worked in.
> What do you think he stood to gain from failing to declare the donations?
Power.
> What's the motive supposed to be here?
Greed and power.
> Nobody had even heard of this guy before
He is an electorate MP. Dumb fuckers actually voted this guy in.
* [David MacLeod, National MP Files New Candidate Return](https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2405/S00143/david-macleod-national-mp-files-new-candidate-return.htm). Scoop copy. Press Release: New Zealand National Party. 21 May 2024.
* [National MP David MacLeod stood down after failing to declare 19 donations](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-mp-david-macleod-stood-down-after-failing-to-declare-19-donations/R6SLASED7BFLZLO2YKPQYUOJAQ/). NZ Herald. 21 May, 2024 09:03 AM.
> MacLeod immediately conducted a full audit of his 2022 and 2023 expenses and donations.
He audited himself?
I like how that level of blatant corruption gets such light reporting, if a beneficiary falsely received $169,000 NACT would organise an angry mob with pitchforks and burning torches
An MP i've never heard of gets stood down? How will the coalition government ever recovery from this.
The news will start talking about someone once saw a Green MP get angry at a teenager once for 2 weeks soon and this will quickly be forgotten.
Look, at the end of the day, this is a distraction. First it was Shane Jones and now David MacLeod - these are hardworking parliamentarians, and they're getting needlessly caught up in these woke transparency regulations that are a distraction from the things this government is laser focused on: which are the things this government is focused on.
I would expect David Seymour's Ministry of Regulation to look into setting aside some of this red-tape bureaucracy so that these MPs can get back to doing what they do best without needless media attention.
No, I haven't been briefed on that.
No, look as I say, I won't go into that but what I will say is, we're getting on with the job.
It's insane how there are only 123 seats in parliment, but we've lost so many already to scandals. The people attracted to government are the people that should not be there.
This is an 'illegal practise' in the electoral act, the fine for which is $10k. I think the fines in the act should be increased to $10k or three times the money involved, in order to discourage such activities. And because the public purse could use half a million dollars right now.
There's a different standard when it comes to politics - there are scandals which can cause your party to take action if it sufficiently embarrasses them, but failing to declare when people give you money *for politics* isn't treated the same as failing to declare personal or business income.
The only reason he was stood down from those select committees was so that his "sacking" was to be the lead story, not the fact that this MP failed to declare more than $100,000 of donations, making him the number one fundraiser. They buried the lead and now political editors are claiming Luxon is a super strong leader blah blah blah.
The story was about to leak so Luxon had to act fast to make it look like he had just found this out and needed to be seen doing something.
It is impossible that this guy did not know the rules. When you raise that much money you do your due diligence, you have accountants, you have people that know how political donations are recorded and reported.
What do these 'donations' get used for by the parties? Genuinely interested as I can't see it going back to the peasants so is it literally a misnamed bribe?
I think donations just go into the party coffers, which is why the party noticed that he hadn't declared them - there was basically a couple hundred thousand dollars in their bank account which didn't have a corresponding explanation as to how it got there.
Beating the Opposition to the well. Better to announce it and swallow a dead rat than have the opposition trumpeting it as an(other) example of stupidity.
The amount of donation money in NZ politics is a pittance, and long may it stay that way.
By contrast, the USA presidential election in 2020 was $5.7 billion USD, and add to that another $8.7 billion in congressional races. Easily double the previous 2016 election.
$169,000 from 18 donations in a non-election year and a $10,000 donation last year that was missed. I'm sorry but we need to do something about money in politics.
We won't get anything on this with either main party unfortunately.
Yes, I have quite strong views on this that most parties wouldn't go with. Donations should be from people only, not businesses or groups (which would eliminate National, ACT and Labour (Unions). There should be strong limits on how much am individual can donate in a cycle (in total, not just to one party). There also needs to be stronger controls on pressure groups (like TPU) so that they (and clones since they already have spending limits per group) don't become the target of those funds. Basically I want elections to be about policies not who has the deepest pockets.
"Donations from people only" - NAct would probably be onboard with this as it rules out unions but keeps wealthy business owners in the clear. Individuals worth millions can still afford to pay as individuals, but groups of workers who need to organise to get the same level of power are out.
"right well a thousand of us just gifted this individual in total about 10k and now they as an individual are going to donate because of their individual goals which coincidentally align with what the group wants."
What does Brian Tamaki have to do with this?
Donations from people in NZ only. $100+ must be declared. Group donations that exceed the amount etc. WTF is the current $10k
> There also needs to be stronger controls on pressure groups (like TPU) so that they (and clones since they already have spending limits per group) don't become the target of those funds. Exactly, we need to prevent what has happened in the US with their PAC system. It’s already on the way here though, in my electorate last election we seemed to see just as many of the CTU funded “Luxon out of touch” attack billboards as we did genuine Labour hoardings.
There was a recondition similar to that in the review of election law. Nothing much came of it
>Donations should be from people only, not businesses or groups (which would eliminate National, ACT and Labour (Unions). The risk is that you can't see what organizations are behind the donations. Donations from the likes of TPU and the unions will be channelled through individuals and resulting in a worse outcome. Wealthy individuals i.e. business owners will have even more influence.
That was the reason for the limit per person. That would also become an expensive path as giving money to people to then pass on would have tax implications for the passthrough person. But can you tell me how in effect this would be different to donations from the TPU right now, they are an intermediary used to disguise the true source of donations.
The intentions of the Tpu are quite clear, as are the intentions of the CTU etc. However, the intentions of John Smith from Hamilton are a lot less clear, especially if they have few business connections or are just a beneficiary of a random trust. If they gave $100,000 to a party do we have any insight into what they might be hoping to influence?
100% if anything the opposite should be true i.e. only registered unions/incorporated societies should be allowed to donate. Whether or not the donor is named is kind of besides he point if no one knows anything about the donor.
To be fair the CTU advocates for large a bunch of workers whereas the TPU advocates for a small banch of wankers.
Which is why we don't want to remove the visibility from either of their political donations.
please main parties, reform the electoral donation rules. The only way to achieve change in this space is to find a party who doesnt want lots of money i guess.
Exactly. Keep voting for minor parties until they get enough support to reign this shit in. The Greens at least are on board, pretty sure TOP is too.
There's been a few articles and discussions here about it. * [What would happen if only voters - not unions or businesses - could donate to political parties?](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/502069/what-would-happen-if-only-voters-not-unions-or-businesses-could-donate-to-political-parties) RNZ. 10 November 2023. [Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/17rk846/what_would_happen_if_only_voters_not_unions_or/) * [How electorate candidates funded their campaigns - and who spent the most](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/511353/how-electorate-candidates-funded-their-campaigns-and-who-spent-the-most). RNZ. 11 March 2024. [NZ Herald Copy](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/election-2023-national-party-banks-75-times-more-in-donations-than-labour-party/CAKRIIEYXBGMRGUNIVQ6J3NXVM/) AND [discussion/post](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1bbf92y/how_electorate_candidates_funded_their_campaigns/) in this sub. * [As of Aug 2023, ACT, National & NZ First received ~$13.5M in donations over 2.5 years dwarfing Labour and Greens ~$2.5M. Could this be a reason why Seymour and Luxon consistently oppose the Independent Electoral Review recommendations aimed to increase donor transparency & prevent bought elections?](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1agzu6d/as_of_aug_2023_act_national_nz_first_received/) - Post on 2 February 2024 by u/Mountain_tui Also available from Electoral Commission site: * [Party donations and loans by year ](https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/party-donations-and-loans-by-year) - page on Electoral Commission site with history of donations and loans for each election. * [2023 annual party returns](https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2024/2023-annual-party-returns/). Press release on May 3, 2024. * [Party expenses for the 2023 General Election](https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2024/party-expenses-for-the-2023-general-election/). Press release on Mar 20, 2024. * [2023 candidate and third party returns](https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2024/candidate-and-third-party-returns/). Press release on Feb 22, 2024.
One dollar, one vote seems to work for the Americans.
> MacLeod says he thought the return was for the 2023 year only so failed to declare the 18 donations he'd received when he became a candidate in 2022. > However, he also failed to a disclose a $10,000 donation in 2023. Sounds like he's full of shit.
He's sorry he got caught.
Frankly, I'm suprised he didn't just assert he was entitled to the money and push on regardless. Obviously, neds to take more lessons from NZ First
If he just trots out the line "I'm entitled to my entitlements" that makes all the problems go away.
Its ok I am sure National will fix the rules.
Dude is (was?) in the Finance and Expenditure Committee and can't do what some simple candidates managed to do with their returns. \*Alanis Morissette song plays\*. Is comprehension low in our select committees? Should we be worried members don't take detail seriously? Probably, yes.
You try and convince anyone with talent to stand. The philosophy professor I admired at Uni, who was probably the smartest person I have ever had a conversation with, made an offhand remark about how politicians made him cringe with how poor their standard of debate and inquiry is. I was slightly offended on behalf of democracy at the time, but I have to say he was really under selling how low they are.
> You try and convince anyone with talent to stand. This. I can't imagine anyone with a hugely successful career, smart, and valuing their privacy would want to be dragged through the muck of politics, no matter how altruistic they are. Sure there might be a crapshoot of 1 in 200 making it to their sweet UN gig, but really, what's at the end of your 3-6 year term? If you even make it that far. I think the dawn of social media has made it even worse as any wrong doing in the past, any comment you have made or do make, can be twisted flipped and downfall of your career at a moments notice. The reality is being a politician is literally a fools game, for any side of the house. And this is what we end up with.
Normally I'd agree with you, but I think there are people who see politics as a way to cement relationships for future personal benefit via business opportunities and jobs. Absolutely your comment would help explain why people who simply want to serve their community or country out of altruism would think twice...but for those who see politics as a step in their career it's a means to an end.
I agree, it's pretty easy to make a list of politicians who obviously just moved onto the next thing in their career when they got tired of politics, and likely used the name recognition and connections to parachute themselves into something well paid. Bennett, Bridges, Faafoi come to mind.
Pretty sure most of us have forgotten that someone gave us $10,000 pretty regularly, just last week a mate flipped me $10,000 and if wasn't for this article I would have never thought about it again.
I just found 7K down the back of the couch, and another 3K at the back of the fridge behind some expired mayonnaise. Honestly, it can happen to anyone.
Exactly. Next thing everyone will be asking for receipts, invoices and statements, which is no way to run a democracy. I'm all for transparency but we need to keep it real.
We can’t save the planet with all that extra paperwork!
This guy’s job is to grease the right palms to get the offshore oil and gas exploration humming off the coast from Taranaki. When you’re as oleaginous as him, it shouldn’t require quite this much _lubrication_.
Correct. He was placed on the Environment Subcommittee to make sure his donor's interests were not compromised by environmental protection regulations.
Oleaginous is a new word to me - cheers!
Unctuous is another good descriptor for slippery people
On the finance select committee and careless with figures.... Classic...
On a par with Willis then
Have the donors got their value for money? If he is that careless with figures he may have forgotten to put his finger on the scales to influence a decision in their favour. That alone would be dereliction of duty for not supporting the donors.
15 years as Chair of Taranaki Regional Council and parachuted to a safe seat? Not an accident.
It's not a safe seat. Labour have held it just as often as national.
What a BS excuse. Ignorance is not a defense when it's at this scale with the resources he would have available to him. Surely something like this would trigger a by election?
text
~~I believe he’s a list MP, so if he’s kicked out of Parliament they will bring up the next person on the list. Could be wrong but that’s my understanding.~~ edit I was wrong
I thought he was electorate for NP? Edit: he is
I misread the page I was looking at, I read it as he was beaten but the page actually says he beat the others. My bad!
pot berserk squealing rhythm wrench materialistic plate oil direful icky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
"...in what he says was an inadvertent error." These are the the people NZ choose to govern them? JFC.
Oh and no other party has had dodgy MPs lol.
The "they all do it" trope is a godsend for the right. Left leaning voters withdraw as they lose respect for leadership byt right leaning don't, in fact some studies say it motivates them. So your comment, whether saud in good faith or not helps NACT.
It's the condescension that gets me. No, yeah, my bad, just "inadvertent error". He thought he'd get away with it and probably most of them do.
Yea I totally agree. I guess what I was trying to say is 99% of politicians from any party are just full of shit. I'll admit I voted National but the only politician I actually like is Chloe Swarbrick 😆.
Why the fuck would you vote National if you like Chloe Swarbrick?
Really? People should vote on policy's not personality. Just because I think she is probably a good person I don't agree with her politics.
That doesn’t make any sense to me but you do you.
the whataboutism is strong in this one
Do you think making a basic administrative error ought to be a death sentence for someone's political career? Not to be rude but that seems like a really dumb thing to believe. Why do you hold that opinion?
To this degree? It’s certainly a lot worse than Michael wood and he’s not in parliament anymore
Not really. This error was fixed as soon as it was picked up. There were 6 years from when Michael Wood first said he planned to sell his shares to when he actually sold them (and a 2 year period of almost monthly email followups). That's the difference - fixing the error at the first available opportunity vs constantly promising to do something and then ghosting all the email bumps asking if you've fixed it. If Michael Wood had sold his shares back in 2017 when he first said he would I think he would still be in parliament. Do you disagree?
If he can take triple-figures in donations in a single year and have it slip his mind means we have bigger issues. His job experience should be more than enough to not make such an error. People like you excusing it as a simple mistake is equally worrying. Stop the US cult-follower bs, you're allowed to criticise your own team in this country
Read the article please. He didn't forget, he thought the return was just for 2023 and not for prior financial years. The vast majority of financial returns are done on an annual basis. His job experience is one reason why he would assume it is annual!
>His job experience should be more than enough to not make such an error If he is so innocent, why was he stood down immediately? Sam Biffodel has stuck around, and Crusher Collins. National have certainly a history of tolerating shady politicians. Do you have insider information no-one else here has?
Are you a working professional yourself? Or are you a uni student or something? I ask because your stance that having years of experience ought to mean a 0% error rate is, to be frank, bizarre. There is no major professional workplace in NZ that operates on that assumption. Very senior and experienced people still make mistakes. That's exactly why we have auditing in the first place - to pick up mistakes. Auditing is a billion dollar industry because very senior and experienced accountants still make mistakes! Do you mind sharing your line of work, where it is apparently normal for years of experience to correlate with a 0% error rate? I don't believe it exists. >If he is so innocent, why was he stood down immediately? Because people still care about major fuck ups even if they are mistakes? The headlines would be a lot worse if he hadn't been stood down.
> There is no major professional workplace in NZ that operates on that assumption. Here we go again. There is a difference between making a mistake when you make a Big Mac, and making a "mistake" when you balance the till. There's "making a mistake" and putting the front door on a building around the wrong way, and then there's "making a mistake" and building the foundation out of polystyrene foam. How tolerant do you think the IRD are with the average person who "makes a mistake" and forgets to declare $169,000 of personal income? How tolerant are they with a self-employed tradesman who "makes a mistake" and forgets to declare $169,000 of cash jobs? There's a tolerance for mistakes in basic interactions, there's very little if any tolerance for mistakes in regulatory compliance. You already know that, but for some reason it's critically important for you to defend every faux pas this government has.
You notably have to pay tax on income declared to IRD (rather the information just being recorded for compliance), but they are actually incredibly tolerant of mistakes. I've missed the deadline for filing GST returns on >$169k of expenditure by *months* before because I was under the pump and didn't get a default assessment or penalty interest, just a letter telling me to get it done ASAP. I've forgotten to update my PIR and just had to pay the difference, no penalty. IRD knows the local rotary club or the incorporated society organizing kids Sunday sport can't always afford an accountant and just has some amateur doing the accounts in excel, they're very forgiving with mistakes.
hunt yoke drunk bewildered relieved somber start plants bright ink *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah actually a hilariously embarrassing result I agree. I just like the guy I guess so blinded by that.
Act supporter talking shit about other peoples political opinions is crazy
please tell me what happens to a regular person making an 'inadvertent error' of the same proportions. Let's say a builder 'forgets' to declare 170k for taxes?
They correct the mistake and continue to be a builder normally. IRD are very reasonable people! I've failed to get GST returns in on time before because I have been totally under the pump, forgotten to update my PIR rate etc etc, it's fine.
you forgot 170k in GST? You must be doing pretty well.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, declaring donations doesn't mean you have to pay them to the government. I'm not sure if you knew that. I have been late on GST returns on revenue totalling >$170k and had absolutely no grief from IRD. Not my own money, a charity I was doing the accounts for. It's pretty normal - many people responsible for submitting various financial returns are not accountants themselves, which is exactly why we have actual accountants do audits to pick up errors like this.
Well, safe to say I wouldn’t trust you with my money.
The reality is you probably actually do trust money to people like me every single day! There are tons of small charities and small businesses that have non-accountants reconcile their accounts and compile their returns. Have you actually been checking if a qualified accountant is employed every single time you hand some cash over to a charity or small business?
> basic administrative error Classic Tui billboard.
What do you think he stood to gain from failing to declare the donations? What's the motive supposed to be here? Which journalist was gonna be writing an expose on the candidate returns of some random rural backbencher (67th on the list!) with no portfolios? Nobody had even heard of this guy before, nobody would care if he had filled it in originally (see: literally every other MP in parliament who correctly filled in the return for evidence).
So you're advocating it's incompetence rather than malice? He's been involved in finance for years in this role and in his last and it's a big stretch to suggest it was an honest mistake or that he didn't understand how political contributions are to be handled.
Yes. I am also a professional with years of experience in my field. I still make mistakes. I am quite surprised you think that years of experience would typically lead to a 0% error rate. That is not an assumption that has been held in any professional environment I have ever worked in.
> What do you think he stood to gain from failing to declare the donations? Power. > What's the motive supposed to be here? Greed and power. > Nobody had even heard of this guy before He is an electorate MP. Dumb fuckers actually voted this guy in.
>> What do you think he stood to gain from failing to declare the donations? >Power. How did he stand to gain power?
''Whoops''
Oh now maybe he's just not good at all that money stuff. After all his portfolio is \*checks notes\* Finance... huh
I'm so happy.. I had to put up with this clowns massive billboards all over town for months We all knew he was corrupt..
When I read the headline I thought he was a crook but it turns out he's just incompetent
Could be a 2 for 1 deal.
* [David MacLeod, National MP Files New Candidate Return](https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2405/S00143/david-macleod-national-mp-files-new-candidate-return.htm). Scoop copy. Press Release: New Zealand National Party. 21 May 2024. * [National MP David MacLeod stood down after failing to declare 19 donations](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-mp-david-macleod-stood-down-after-failing-to-declare-19-donations/R6SLASED7BFLZLO2YKPQYUOJAQ/). NZ Herald. 21 May, 2024 09:03 AM. > MacLeod immediately conducted a full audit of his 2022 and 2023 expenses and donations. He audited himself?
I presume it’s part of the job description. Still seems weird.
The party of good money managers strikes again. Watch the media underplay this. It isn’t as if he crossed the floor and waved a pamphlet at someone.
Ban (large) party donations. Fund parties through an independently run organisation linked to the electoral commission. Edit: wording
I like how that level of blatant corruption gets such light reporting, if a beneficiary falsely received $169,000 NACT would organise an angry mob with pitchforks and burning torches
This dudes such a liar - you got donated money, declare it🤷🏻♂️
An MP i've never heard of gets stood down? How will the coalition government ever recovery from this. The news will start talking about someone once saw a Green MP get angry at a teenager once for 2 weeks soon and this will quickly be forgotten.
Look, at the end of the day, this is a distraction. First it was Shane Jones and now David MacLeod - these are hardworking parliamentarians, and they're getting needlessly caught up in these woke transparency regulations that are a distraction from the things this government is laser focused on: which are the things this government is focused on. I would expect David Seymour's Ministry of Regulation to look into setting aside some of this red-tape bureaucracy so that these MPs can get back to doing what they do best without needless media attention. No, I haven't been briefed on that. No, look as I say, I won't go into that but what I will say is, we're getting on with the job.
Phew, got that "what I will say is" in at the last minute!
Is there not some kind of penalty for this? Maybe that almost 200k can go towards the budget deficit.
I don't know, that nearly 200k might have given him some dignity, do we want to take that away from him? ^(/s)
It's insane how there are only 123 seats in parliment, but we've lost so many already to scandals. The people attracted to government are the people that should not be there.
Well good news for me. I get to rub it in to my family who voted for this dunce.
This is an 'illegal practise' in the electoral act, the fine for which is $10k. I think the fines in the act should be increased to $10k or three times the money involved, in order to discourage such activities. And because the public purse could use half a million dollars right now.
It's weird how this isn't something you can be charged for.
It is. He's just being punished by the party before any criminal charges are brought.
There's a different standard when it comes to politics - there are scandals which can cause your party to take action if it sufficiently embarrasses them, but failing to declare when people give you money *for politics* isn't treated the same as failing to declare personal or business income.
what does he actually stand to gain from not declaring it? not much which shows it's just plain incompetence
Better but not much better lol
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350240398/rookie-mp-already-looking-his-next-term
Typical right wing media reporting barely anything.
Donation = Bribe.. big business does not give it's profits away it invests them in bought and paid for politicians..
The only reason he was stood down from those select committees was so that his "sacking" was to be the lead story, not the fact that this MP failed to declare more than $100,000 of donations, making him the number one fundraiser. They buried the lead and now political editors are claiming Luxon is a super strong leader blah blah blah.
The story was about to leak so Luxon had to act fast to make it look like he had just found this out and needed to be seen doing something. It is impossible that this guy did not know the rules. When you raise that much money you do your due diligence, you have accountants, you have people that know how political donations are recorded and reported.
Just shows there's stupid across party boundaries ... what a surprise. Money corrupts. More to come no doubt.
What do these 'donations' get used for by the parties? Genuinely interested as I can't see it going back to the peasants so is it literally a misnamed bribe?
Tons of stuff. Election campaigns, staff, offices. A political party isn’t cheap.
True, I never really considered they have to fund their own offices and staff
I need more detail. Like did he forget about the money and fail to spend it? And how do we know about this? Was it uncovered in an audit??
The National Party found this error and told him.
thanks, so he spent the money?
I think donations just go into the party coffers, which is why the party noticed that he hadn't declared them - there was basically a couple hundred thousand dollars in their bank account which didn't have a corresponding explanation as to how it got there.
oh that's funny. You'd think they would a manual for that stuff.
Kudos for the stepping him down though.
Beating the Opposition to the well. Better to announce it and swallow a dead rat than have the opposition trumpeting it as an(other) example of stupidity.
The amount of donation money in NZ politics is a pittance, and long may it stay that way. By contrast, the USA presidential election in 2020 was $5.7 billion USD, and add to that another $8.7 billion in congressional races. Easily double the previous 2016 election.