National MP David MacLeod’s donations paperwork stuff-up will hurt but not end his ministerial hopes - Claire Trevett

Claire Trevett is the NZ Herald’s political editor, based at Parliament in Wellington. She started at the NZ Herald in 2003 and joined the Press Gallery team in 2007. She is a life member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.

OPINION

National MP David MacLeod has become the latest MP to be hoist by his own paperwork, after the spectacular dismount last year of former Labour MP Michael Wood for the debacle around his shares.

Unlike Wood (who had ignored repeated suggestions that he sell his shares), MacLeod can at least rely on the rookie mistake card to recover.

MacLeod’s stuff-up was his failure to disclose about $180,000 in 19 donations he got towards his campaign for the New Plymouth seat. He had disclosed his 2023 donations (apart from a $10,000 one which slipped through the cracks somehow), but had not done so with his 2022 donations.

Now MacLeod suffers the consequences of this inattention, having been stripped by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon of his select committee roles as chair of the Environment Select Committee and a member on the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee.

That is not a small punishment for a first-term MP. Doing a good job on a select committee is one of the few ways to catch your leader’s eye and prove you’re up to the job of a minister.

It was clear MacLeod was one of those new MPs in line for a quick ascendancy to the ministerial benches. He was the chair of a committee in his first term and parties put the cream of the crop on the finance and expenditure committee.

He is considered, experienced and capable. It would not have been a big surprise if MacLeod had been put straight into a ministerial role, as Tama Potaka was.

However, MacLeod can be thankful that the paperwork debacle happened early in his career and before he became a minister.

Being stripped of select committee roles is something an MP can bounce back from.

Had MacLeod already been a minister, Luxon would almost certainly have removed him from that role. He would have had little choice after baying for Hipkins to sack Wood for his failures to disclose his shares on his register of pecuniary interests and then to sell the shares, despite repeat reminders from the Cabinet Office.

Being sacked as a minister is a much more serious punishment. Once you’re replaced, it is also much harder to get the job back.

That would have had a far more lasting impact on MacLeod’s future prospects.

MacLeod’s climb to the ministerial benches will likely now be slower than it would otherwise have been – but it is still a very live option.

The extent to which it is now delayed may depend on whether the Electoral Commission decides to refer the issue to police to investigate. The Electoral Commission is weighing that up now and it seems likely to happen. The process of police investigating electoral issues can be a very slow one. Luxon will not want to reinstate MacLeod until that happens.

For a first-time candidate, his is perhaps an understandable mistake, although less so given MacLeod’s background in governance issues.

There will be sceptics but on the face of it, his error in failing to declare the 2022 donations is indeed more likely to be a rookie mistake than an attempt to keep his donations hidden.

He has said he thought the early donations had already been disclosed in 2022 and that the election return only covered donations received in the 2023 year.

On that explanation, he had clearly not looked at the rules properly or muddled them up.

Individual candidates only do returns in an election year. Political parties have to do them every year.

Adding to the risk for MacLeod is that he was selected in 2022 – most candidates are not selected until an election year starts and so the donations do not start flowing until then.

The form for the candidate returns does not specify what timeframe the return should cover. However, the Electoral Commission’s handbook for candidates – that sets out the rules – does stipulate donations rules apply from the point a candidate starts fundraising or seeking donations and are not limited to an election year.

MacLeod had reported the donations to the National Party: it was the National Party which dobbed him in after realising during its post-election reconciliation work that the donations were not disclosed. He had clearly assumed that the party would have told him if he had erred in his disclosure.

So to the lessons. All new candidates will learn a valuable lesson from McLeod.

It’s a fair bet other new MPs will be going back through their own paperwork to make sure they disclosed what they should have.

National will be looking at its own oversight and guidance, especially for new candidates, to be sure it is adequate and clear.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins clearly recognised that election returns come with the potential for paperwork disaster – or remembered the Wood experience. He refrained from hurling stones in a potential glasshouse, saying only that it was up to the National Party to deal with the issue and adding wistfully that if a Labour candidate got more than $100,000 in donations, he would be shouting it from the rafters.