The hypocrisy of the attacks on Michael Wood

Written By: - Date published: 1:20 pm, June 12th, 2023 - 13 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, Gerry Brownlee, labour, michael wood, national, nicola willis, tax, tenants' rights - Tags:

I feel very sorry for Michael Wood.  Like Bomber Bradbury I consider him to be a scrupulously moral and ethical man of enormous mana.  As a Minister he has been on top of his game and has been hard working and conscientious.

And it is not as if he is the only person to make mistakes.

Just before his story was published National MPs made the following corrections to the Pecuniary Register of Interests:

  • Gerry Brownlee seems to have forgotten that he owned a second residential home.
  • Sam Uffindell forgot to include in the section with the heading “Retirement Schemes” his Australian Super and his Westpac Kiwisaver.
  • And Nicola Willis forgot that she had a mortgage and has subsequently added this in to the section with the heading “Debts owed by you”.

Clearly they were getting ready for the attack but had to get their own house in order just in case the allegation was made that they were being hypocritical.  So like Michael they made changes to their register of pecuniary interests to cover oversights.

In political terms they have struck gold.  Day after day they had new revelations which have kept the story in the headlines.  And they now have the bonus of a review by the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests after prompting from National MP Chris Penk.

The announcement of the results of the review will attract further headlines and media attention.

Wood has now sold the shares and donated the proceeds to charity.  To be frank and I know how difficult this can be if you are dealing with historical shareholding and do not hold the necessary information but clearly he should have done this earlier.

National’s and Act’s overblown rhetoric on this issue is hypocritical in two respects.  Firstly they have made these sorts of mistakes themselves.  And secondly there is an example of National Leader Christopher Luxon being hopelessly compromised when it comes to making decisions regarding the tax treatment of landlords that he was recently questioned about.

On Q&A it was put to Christopher Luxon that his personal interests would be well served by National’s proposal to change tax laws to favour landlords.  After all restoring interest deductibility and winding back the bright line tax period could be very beneficial to someone who owns seven investment properties.

The question that Jack Tame poses is a very good one.  Why isn’t it a conflict of interest for a politician with multiple properties to decide on tax laws affecting him but it is if he holds modest shareholding that he purchased over two decades ago?

The scale of the conflict absolutely dwarfs that of Michael Wood owning a few shares he bought when he was a teenager.

And out in the real world if people are asked the overwhelming response is Meh.

This whole issue speaks to National’s style.  Making half baked allegations and outlandish claims and ignoring the hypocrisy of their own position and behaviour is par for the course.

13 comments on “The hypocrisy of the attacks on Michael Wood ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Mike the Lefty 1
    12 June 2023 at 2:14 pm

    I guess that National could easily counter that last argument by saying that Luxon's ownership of several properties and shares is not a conflict of interest because he is not a cabinet minister and Michael Woods is.

    Not that it makes it any more honourable. Being a rich prick and wanting tax cuts for yourself and your cronies – thank you very much for your kind donation New Zealanders, thank you very very much.

    National make sure they always look after themselves and their mates first, the rest of us can either get the crumbs later on down the line, if we are lucky, or else join the queue in front of Zilch and be the target of snide comments by ACT suits.

    • Phillip ure 1.1
      12 June 2023 at 3:40 pm

      It's not'several' houses.

      It's seven houses…

      National policy pays out big-time for him..

      Luxon:. putting the 'con' in conflict-of-interest…

  2. Mr Nobody 2
    12 June 2023 at 2:34 pm

    How many times was he told to sell them? [zero]

    How many times did her tell the Prime Minster (current and Former) that he had sold them? [zero]

    How many times did he tell the media he had sold them? [zero]

    [lprent: banned for 4 weeks for lying. Sure they were questions. However lying with framed questions is a long dishonest way of politics – and is still just lying. I call it the pig-fucker tactic, as in “when was the last time you had carnal relations with that pig”. I assume that anyone using it is a complete arsehole troll and deserves to be treated as such.

    If you can link to a valid instance of any of these where I am wrong – then I will take a week off for each. ]

  3. tsmithfield 3
    12 June 2023 at 2:39 pm

    ….but clearly he should have done this earlier.

    Too right. And that, precisely is the problem. Not the magnitude of the conflict. It has come out of recent days that he appears to have been contacted numerous times checking to see if the shares have been sold, and appears to have provided misleading information to various parties about the status of the shares. But, that has been well documented.

    In contrast, the National members you have mentioned, have quickly corrected their position to ensure accuracy.

    And the vast majority of MPs have interests in property. So, most technically have conflicts of interest in this aspect. It is a bit like the RB Governer being in conflict about interest rate changes if he has money in the bank.

    And, an MP with a 10% deposit on a $1 million house, then there is a major conflict. If such an MP made a decision on housing that lead to a 20% increase in house prices, then this house would increase to $1.2 million in value, meaning a $200k profit on the $100k equity in the house. This is a very material gain.

    So, probably needs to be the Cabinet Office that decides what to do about housing ownership conflicts of interest.

  4. Phillip ure 4
    12 June 2023 at 2:50 pm

    The jack tame interview was a very good piece of journalism..

    And he nailed the conflicts of interest swirling around luxon…

    And as far as wood is concerned…as others have noted…it isn't the shares… it's the mix of hubris and sloppiness..in his failure to sell them…..and the lies told to media/ardern/whomever by wood…

    But as far as conflicts of interest are concerned…luxon leads the pack..

  5. Ad 5
    12 June 2023 at 3:00 pm

    Have you already forgotten how much the left lost last week?

  6. Dennis Frank 6
    12 June 2023 at 5:17 pm

    It's traditional for political leaders to be hypocrites in public though. People expect it. Obama campaigning to close the torture center, then refusing to close it when he won – for two whole terms as president. Etc…

    Vernon Small pointed out that the cabinet office was merely advising him:

    According to Cabinet Manual guidance, “where a conflict of interest is significant and pervasive, the Minister may need to divest themselves of the interest”. The key words are “may need to” (not must) and “significant and pervasive”.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/300902313/transport-minister-not-out-of-hot-water-yet

    You can see why he stone-walled the public servants for 931 days, right? The yapping of a pekinese (or Hilary Clinton) is a minor irritant to a busy worker. He was intent on doing a good job so as to loom as a future PM in the public mind. Their 12 reminders over those three years contained no action trigger for him – as in necessity. In classic ancient Greek dramatic fashion, fate then struck.

    I was bemused. The melodrama promoted him as a staunch rebel minister, engaged in guerilla warfare against a gang of bureaucrats. I even had those two classic lines from the Crystals hit of the early 1960s (He's a Rebel) recycling in my head:

    He's a rebel and he'll never ever be any good; He's a rebel cause he never ever does what he should…

    He could combine his thick layer of Brylcreem with a leather jacket & look even cooler, to hone his trajectory towards a rebel PM future. Retro '50s pushes the nostalgia button.

    Others may prefer the tacit memory problem theory, or the incompetence theory – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle – but if you combine the passive/agressive rebel theory with game-changer theory you get a winner I reckon. Last Labour PM to do that was Lange.

    • Craig H 6.1
      12 June 2023 at 10:43 pm

      Not sure which torture centre you are referring to, but if it was Gitmo, Congress passed budget legislation preventing Obama closing it.

  7. newsense 7
    12 June 2023 at 7:51 pm

    The equivalent of clicked not yet on an update.

    You know he’s doing something right.

    So if you make a decision that will benefit you personally by tens to hundreds to millions of dollars that’s not a conflict of interest?

    Spot why Luxon’s numbers are still dropping personally.

    And spot why parliament as a whole is screwing over renters. It has no legitimacy in representing them.

  8. JohnO 8
    21 June 2023 at 3:01 pm

    "Wood has now sold the shares and donated the proceeds to charity. To be frank and I know how difficult this can be if you are dealing with historical shareholding and do not hold the necessary information but clearly he should have done this earlier."

    Yeah, about that…