News of Michael Wood’s resignation drifted quickly off the front pages on New Zealand’s major news sites.
His downfall was yet another embarrassing fiasco for a government with somewhat limited ministerial talent, but the actual detail of Michael Wood’s scandal is unlikely to resonate with much of the voting public. In six months, many more voters will remember Christopher Luxon’s Tesla (OK – his wife’s Tesla) than will remember the details of Michael Wood’s share portfolio.
This is not to downplay Wood's error. It still beggars belief that a seemingly organised, detail-oriented, hardworking and ambitious politician could make such a significant error. And continue to make it. For those who’ve followed his political career, it seems bafflingly out of character for an MP like Wood not to have wholly and completely sorted his potential conflicts, even before he was elected to Parliament.
Wood held critical portfolios at a critical moment. Transport and immigration policy could scarcely be more important right now, and as Minister for Auckland, he needed to find a way through the ongoing issues facing the city, which extended far beyond the recovery from January’s floods.
His portfolio allocations were a reflection of Wood’s competency, especially relative to some of his colleagues. Regardless of what people think of it, he progressed the Auckland Light Rail project more effectively than his predecessor, and Wood’s stewardship of the Fair Pay Agreements legislation will be one of the term’s enduring successes in the eyes of Labour’s supporters.
So could he make it back to Cabinet? If it were only a measure of his talents, then certainly. Labour only has so many MPs suited to the more demanding and technical ministerial portfolios. Someone with Wood's experience is of outsized value for a government that has been routinely criticised for falling short of its stated policy ambitions, and struggling to get stuff done.
If it were only up to the public, then certainly. Wood's downfall is not especially sensational in the grand scheme of parliamentary scandals. In the memories of the voting public it will be forgotten soon enough.
But perhaps the greater challenge is winning back his colleagues’ trust.
I don’t think anyone seriously believes Michael Wood made decisions in his ministerial capacity with the intention of personally benefiting through his shareholdings. But his explanations don’t stack up. Why did he ignore the myriad warnings to declare, manage, and sell his shares? And did he intentionally deceive the prime minister?
At Wednesday’s press conference to announce Wood’s resignation, Chris Hipkins simply said: “He still hasn’t given me a good explanation.”
Any potential return to Cabinet will surely have to begin with that.
SHARE ME