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:
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.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress