Wood had been on notice since it was revealed he had failed to sell his shares in Auckland Airport, a clear conflict of interest for a Transport Minister.
But he resigned yesterday as a minister after it emerged he held thousands of dollars’ worth of additional shares in a trust, some of which raised potential conflicts of interest with decisions that went before him as a minister and cabinet as a whole.
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins indicated he would have sacked Wood if Wood had not offered to resign. He looked clearly frustrated and exasperated at the press conference yesterday.
The additional shareholders were held in a family trust, of which he is both a trustee and a beneficiary. The trust holds thousands of dollars of shares in particular a stake in Chorus, Spark and the National Australia Bank - and having those shares raised questions around potential conflicts.
You've got a Prime Minister who's lost three ministers in three months, which is incredibly careless to lose three ministers in three months. Will it even matter?
Will people see it as a Prime Minister losing control of his cabinet or a Prime Minister getting rid of all the dead wood, so to speak, that his predecessor didn't have the nous or the inclination to manage?
I mean, we've known for a while that there is not a great talent pool within that enormous Labour caucus.
There aren't many shining stars and those who are shine brightly. So is this Hipkins paying attention to detail and getting his ministers to be accountable for their actions? Or is it a minister losing control of his cabinet?
He looked frustrated and annoyed. He's heading off to China. He doesn't want any more surprises like Meka Whaitiri when he's offshore.
And can anybody explain the inaction of Michael Wood?
Sixteen times he was told to sell his shares. Sixteen times he failed to do so. I'm not a great details person and I've paid dearly because I'm a not a details person, but I tell you what, if my boss said to me, ‘Kerre sell your shares or lose your job’.
I'd sell my shares.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins indicated he would have sacked Wood if Wood had not offered to resign. He looked clearly frustrated and exasperated at the press conference yesterday.
The additional shareholders were held in a family trust, of which he is both a trustee and a beneficiary. The trust holds thousands of dollars of shares in particular a stake in Chorus, Spark and the National Australia Bank - and having those shares raised questions around potential conflicts.
You've got a Prime Minister who's lost three ministers in three months, which is incredibly careless to lose three ministers in three months. Will it even matter?
Will people see it as a Prime Minister losing control of his cabinet or a Prime Minister getting rid of all the dead wood, so to speak, that his predecessor didn't have the nous or the inclination to manage?
I mean, we've known for a while that there is not a great talent pool within that enormous Labour caucus.
There aren't many shining stars and those who are shine brightly. So is this Hipkins paying attention to detail and getting his ministers to be accountable for their actions? Or is it a minister losing control of his cabinet?
He looked frustrated and annoyed. He's heading off to China. He doesn't want any more surprises like Meka Whaitiri when he's offshore.
And can anybody explain the inaction of Michael Wood?
Sixteen times he was told to sell his shares. Sixteen times he failed to do so. I'm not a great details person and I've paid dearly because I'm a not a details person, but I tell you what, if my boss said to me, ‘Kerre sell your shares or lose your job’.
I'd sell my shares.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB
2 comments:
Title: The Woods Situation: A Reflection of Our Struggling Democracy
Introduction:
The recent developments surrounding the Woods situation in the New Zealand Parliament have unveiled a disheartening reality — our democracy is in a state of decline. This situation serves as a vivid illustration of how the integrity of our political system has eroded. In a thriving democracy, accountability and honorable actions would have prompted Woods to step down immediately. However, the hesitance of the Prime Minister to ask for his resignation and Woods' contemplation of his position have exposed a flaw in our democratic process. It is crucial to recognize that the pillars of democracy rest on a robust moral foundation, and the fading presence of such morals within the beehive is deeply unsettling.
Paragraph 1: A Broken System of Accountability
The apparent reluctance to swiftly address the Woods situation demonstrates a fundamental flaw in our system of accountability. In a robust democracy, elected officials are expected to uphold high standards of ethical conduct and promptly accept responsibility for their actions. However, the prolonged delay in demanding Woods' resignation raises questions about the effectiveness of our mechanisms for holding individuals accountable. The longer we allow this situation to linger without decisive action, the more our democracy suffers, eroding public trust and undermining the legitimacy of our political institutions.
Paragraph 2: The PM's Reluctance and Its Implications
One cannot ignore the role of the Prime Minister in this disheartening scenario. As the leader of the nation, the Prime Minister carries the responsibility to uphold the principles of democracy and act as a guardian of the people's interests. However, the PM's apparent fear or hesitance to ask Woods to resign his seat tarnishes the credibility of the office. Democracy thrives when leaders demonstrate strong moral character, decisive action, and an unwavering commitment to accountability. By abdicating this responsibility, the PM sends a distressing message to the public, further eroding their faith in the democratic process.
Paragraph 3: The Right to Choose: A Question of Morality
In a democracy, the rights and choices of individuals are highly valued. However, when it comes to public office and serving the interests of the people, the greater good should always take precedence. Woods' ability to determine his own fate in this situation raises concerns about the erosion of ethical decision-making within our political sphere. Democracy requires leaders who place the well-being of the nation above personal interests. Allowing an individual to decide their own course of action in the face of potential impropriety undermines the essence of democracy and highlights the urgent need to restore a sense of moral responsibility within our political institutions.
Conclusion: Rebuilding Democracy's Moral Foundation
The Woods situation serves as a poignant wake-up call for New Zealand's democracy. We must confront the unsettling reality that our political system is struggling to maintain a robust moral foundation. To preserve the integrity of our democracy, it is imperative that we demand swift accountability from elected officials. Leaders, including the Prime Minister, must exhibit unwavering moral character, prioritize the interests of the people, and act decisively in the face of ethical breaches. Only through such collective efforts can we begin to restore public trust, strengthen our democratic institutions, and ensure a future where the principles of accountability, transparency, and ethical conduct flourish once again within the beehive.
Indeed, Brian, very well said! They have been weighed; they have been measured; and they have been found wanting. Time they were gone!
Post a Comment