The revelation that Transport Minister Michael Wood held shares in Auckland Airport while he was responsible for aviation issues was an open invitation for opposition parties to put the boot in, and they did.
It was quite a kicking, and Hipkins faced an excruciating question time on Wednesday.
There were several angles of attack available. National and ACT used them all.
Wood did not declare his shareholding until last year, and did not correct previous registers, which he should have done.
He had declared the shares to the Cabinet Office early on, which was not public disclosure.
The Cabinet Office saw the conflict of interest and advised him to sell them. He didn't.
While he was responsible for aviation issues he turned down an application from North Shore Aerodrome for airport status - it could have potentially competed with Auckland Airport.
The most devastating moment came in the House on Wednesday when National's deputy leader Nicola Willis asked Hipkins how many times the Cabinet Office had asked Wood whether he had sold his shares.
Hipkins listed 12 dates between November 2020 and March this year.
"Throughout the process, Michael Wood confirmed that he was about to or was in the process of divesting the shareholdings," he said.
That opened the floodgates. Willis, ACT leader David Seymour and several of his MPs piled in.
Here is an example of the bizarre extrapolations that were being drawn:
ACT MP Chris Baillie: "How can a humble pub owner applying for a liquor licence under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act be sure that the district licencing committee members haven't invested in a competing pub, when the prime minister couldn't trust his own transport minister to declare shares in Auckland Airport when declining airport authority status to the North Shore Aerodrome?"
Hipkins said the issues raised were completely unrelated, and then had to endure a string of similar questions.
The prime minister's usual boisterous attitude to opposition questions had deserted him
"It was the first question time in the House since Hipkins became prime minister that he flopped back into his seat looking truly irritated and deflated," said Stuff's political editor Luke Malpass.
"The irony of all this is that it was such a nonsense issue. No one in Parliament really thinks that Wood either sought or got any personal gain from the $13,000 of shares he owned in Auckland Airport."
Malpass said the issue was around managing conflict of interest.
"If you have shares in a company you shouldn't be making government decisions that could affect that company ... for some reason, over nearly three years, Wood didn't clear up the conflict."
And that is the really puzzling part of this - why didn't Wood get rid of the shares? He earns $300,000 a year, surely he wasn't holding on to them hoping their value would increase.
Newshub's political editor Jenna Lynch said it was "absolutely baffling" and that went for the rest of the press gallery and Parliament, from the prime minister down.
Wood has given several explanations, none of them adequate. He was very busy and just didn't get around to it, there was a mix-up over an email address when he sought information about the shares, he told the person dealing with them to "effectively get rid of them" and thought they had been sold, they were in a trust and he did not think he had to declare them.
He did have a credible explanation for not declaring the shares in 2018.
Filling in the online form, he was confused by the format and some green italicised printing, and typed in the shares on the wrong line, Newshub reported. Because of that, the entry wasn't picked up when the register was being put together.
Anyone who has filled in an online form could identify with that problem.
By Thursday the shares had been sold for $16,000. Wood said he was donating the money to charity.
He will soon be explaining again why the shares were not declared sooner than they were, because on Thursday the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests, Sir Maarten Wevers, announced he was launching a formal inquiry into "whether Hon Michael Wood has complied with his obligations to declare certain interests under Parliament's Standing Orders".
He said he would also look at "whether the matter may involve a breach of the obligations to make a return, and whether the matter is technical or trivial".
Wood's future may rest, at least in part, on the outcome of the inquiry.
The full report on Wever's statement is on RNZ's website.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/491576/parliamentary-inquiry-to-be-held-into-michael-wood-s-disclosure-of-assets-other-financial-interests
For a competent minister - and he has shown himself to be that - Wood has got himself into a real muddle.
He was stood down by Hipkins on Tuesday until such time as all this is cleared up, if it can be. He clearly does not want to lose him because Wood is in charge of important transport projects which will drag Labour down if they go wrong.
This is not the first time ministerial shareholdings have caused a great fuss, and the boot has been on the other foot.
Here's a paragraph from a Herald report from September 2008:
"Labour has accused National leader John Key of lying over his ownership of Tranz Rail shares after revealing he failed to completely disclose his interests."
And in 2010, when Key was prime minister, he was again under attack from Labour. Here's part of a National Business Review report:
"The story was that he held shares in Highwater Vineyard in Central Otago. He was one of 11 owners and five of the others were supermarket owners. The government was working on liquor law reform.
"The perception being created was that Key meddled in liquor law reform."
The report concluded: "This is obviously ludicrous but that doesn't matter in politics."
Key's assets were in a blind trust. He said he "hadn't a clue" what was happening to any of his shares.
National Party MPs who were around at the time and are now attacking Hipkins probably remember those days. What goes around comes around.
On Thursday it was Jan Tinetti's turn to explain why she made a false statement to Parliament and did not correct it until Speaker Adrian Rurawhe raised it with her.
That was about her saying she did not have any responsibility for holding up the release of truancy data, which her office told her the same day was not correct because it had been involved in the timing.
The committee sits as Parliament's court, chaired by Attorney-General David Parker. The seven other members represent National, ACT and the Greens.
The hearing was more civilised than the debating chamber had been, with Tinetti answering detailed questions about what she knew and when she knew it.
Tinetti told the committee the delay in correcting her statement was an error of judgement which she deeply regretted, RNZ reported.
She said she took the integrity of Parliament very seriously but on that day - her first question time as a minister - she made the wrong decision.
The committee will decide whether to hold her in contempt of Parliament and if so what to do about that. It can hand out punishments ranging from prison to censure, or it could decide she is not in contempt.
It has to report to Parliament, not the government, and it cannot do that until the House comes back from recess on 20 June.
The release this week of the interim report of the Independent Electoral Review Panel provided a flurry of interest because among its recommendations were lowering the voting age to 16 and extending the Parliamentary term from the current three years to four.
Advocates for lowering the age celebrated while ACT's David Seymour described the recommendations as "a grab bag of Green Party policies"'.
The Greens said other parties shouldn't politicise the report and should "listen to the experts".
Hipkins again made clear he was not going to do anything about the voting age.
Changing it would need a 75 percent affirmative vote in Parliament and Hipkins said it just was not there.
He has previously said he will not bring a bill to Parliament that is doomed to fail.
As for extending the Parliamentary term, that is something politicians want but the main parties are wary of going there.
During one of the TV debates before the last election, Jacinda Ardern and Judith Collins agreed it should be extended and Collins commented "let's do it then".
Nothing happened.
This time, Hipkins said it was an issue that would be decided by voters but did not commit to anything.
Voters had their chance in 1990, when there was a referendum on extending the term to four years, and nearly 70 percent said no.
During debates before it took place it became clear the main reason for opposing a longer term was that people did not trust governments to get anything right and were not going to give them an extra year to get everything wrong before they could be booted out.
Before Michael Wood took centre stage this week attention was being paid to ACT and its prospects of being a powerful partner should National lead the next government.
Stuff's Malpass drew attention to figures which showed that while ACT and the Greens both won 10 seats last election, based on the polls ACT now appeared to be the third-largest party in Parliament.
He cited recent polls: Greens 7 percent, ACT 11 percent; Greens 8.1 percent, ACT 10.8 percent; Greens 7 percent, ACT 12.7 percent.
Another Stuff report was headlined "Underestimate David Seymour at your peril", written by Andrea Vance.
"If you haven't been paying attention, it's time to start taking ACT seriously," she said.
"The protest vote was once an important factor in NZ First's success. Opinion polls would often underestimate their vote share, because at the last minute supporters of the legacy parties would throw their party vote to Winston Peters.
"In many ways, Seymour is the new Peters, sucking up his support - and many of his populist tricks - albeit with a 21st century twist."
Vance said ACT was also gaining support in its own right.
"Half a decade ago, you couldn't have paid people to go to an ACT rally. Now Seymour is charging for the privilege."
Finally: The Green Party's Ōhāriu candidate Stephanie Rodgers is launching her campaign with a pole dancing show at Wellington's Fringe Bar on 22 June. She is the pole dancer.
Peter Wilson is a life member of Parliament's press gallery, 22 years as NZPA's political editor and seven as parliamentary bureau chief for NZ Newswire. This article was first published HERE
Wood did not declare his shareholding until last year, and did not correct previous registers, which he should have done.
He had declared the shares to the Cabinet Office early on, which was not public disclosure.
The Cabinet Office saw the conflict of interest and advised him to sell them. He didn't.
While he was responsible for aviation issues he turned down an application from North Shore Aerodrome for airport status - it could have potentially competed with Auckland Airport.
The most devastating moment came in the House on Wednesday when National's deputy leader Nicola Willis asked Hipkins how many times the Cabinet Office had asked Wood whether he had sold his shares.
Hipkins listed 12 dates between November 2020 and March this year.
"Throughout the process, Michael Wood confirmed that he was about to or was in the process of divesting the shareholdings," he said.
That opened the floodgates. Willis, ACT leader David Seymour and several of his MPs piled in.
Here is an example of the bizarre extrapolations that were being drawn:
ACT MP Chris Baillie: "How can a humble pub owner applying for a liquor licence under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act be sure that the district licencing committee members haven't invested in a competing pub, when the prime minister couldn't trust his own transport minister to declare shares in Auckland Airport when declining airport authority status to the North Shore Aerodrome?"
Hipkins said the issues raised were completely unrelated, and then had to endure a string of similar questions.
The prime minister's usual boisterous attitude to opposition questions had deserted him
"It was the first question time in the House since Hipkins became prime minister that he flopped back into his seat looking truly irritated and deflated," said Stuff's political editor Luke Malpass.
"The irony of all this is that it was such a nonsense issue. No one in Parliament really thinks that Wood either sought or got any personal gain from the $13,000 of shares he owned in Auckland Airport."
Malpass said the issue was around managing conflict of interest.
"If you have shares in a company you shouldn't be making government decisions that could affect that company ... for some reason, over nearly three years, Wood didn't clear up the conflict."
And that is the really puzzling part of this - why didn't Wood get rid of the shares? He earns $300,000 a year, surely he wasn't holding on to them hoping their value would increase.
Newshub's political editor Jenna Lynch said it was "absolutely baffling" and that went for the rest of the press gallery and Parliament, from the prime minister down.
Wood has given several explanations, none of them adequate. He was very busy and just didn't get around to it, there was a mix-up over an email address when he sought information about the shares, he told the person dealing with them to "effectively get rid of them" and thought they had been sold, they were in a trust and he did not think he had to declare them.
He did have a credible explanation for not declaring the shares in 2018.
Filling in the online form, he was confused by the format and some green italicised printing, and typed in the shares on the wrong line, Newshub reported. Because of that, the entry wasn't picked up when the register was being put together.
Anyone who has filled in an online form could identify with that problem.
By Thursday the shares had been sold for $16,000. Wood said he was donating the money to charity.
He will soon be explaining again why the shares were not declared sooner than they were, because on Thursday the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests, Sir Maarten Wevers, announced he was launching a formal inquiry into "whether Hon Michael Wood has complied with his obligations to declare certain interests under Parliament's Standing Orders".
He said he would also look at "whether the matter may involve a breach of the obligations to make a return, and whether the matter is technical or trivial".
Wood's future may rest, at least in part, on the outcome of the inquiry.
The full report on Wever's statement is on RNZ's website.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/491576/parliamentary-inquiry-to-be-held-into-michael-wood-s-disclosure-of-assets-other-financial-interests
For a competent minister - and he has shown himself to be that - Wood has got himself into a real muddle.
He was stood down by Hipkins on Tuesday until such time as all this is cleared up, if it can be. He clearly does not want to lose him because Wood is in charge of important transport projects which will drag Labour down if they go wrong.
This is not the first time ministerial shareholdings have caused a great fuss, and the boot has been on the other foot.
Here's a paragraph from a Herald report from September 2008:
"Labour has accused National leader John Key of lying over his ownership of Tranz Rail shares after revealing he failed to completely disclose his interests."
And in 2010, when Key was prime minister, he was again under attack from Labour. Here's part of a National Business Review report:
"The story was that he held shares in Highwater Vineyard in Central Otago. He was one of 11 owners and five of the others were supermarket owners. The government was working on liquor law reform.
"The perception being created was that Key meddled in liquor law reform."
The report concluded: "This is obviously ludicrous but that doesn't matter in politics."
Key's assets were in a blind trust. He said he "hadn't a clue" what was happening to any of his shares.
National Party MPs who were around at the time and are now attacking Hipkins probably remember those days. What goes around comes around.
On Thursday it was Jan Tinetti's turn to explain why she made a false statement to Parliament and did not correct it until Speaker Adrian Rurawhe raised it with her.
That was about her saying she did not have any responsibility for holding up the release of truancy data, which her office told her the same day was not correct because it had been involved in the timing.
The committee sits as Parliament's court, chaired by Attorney-General David Parker. The seven other members represent National, ACT and the Greens.
The hearing was more civilised than the debating chamber had been, with Tinetti answering detailed questions about what she knew and when she knew it.
Tinetti told the committee the delay in correcting her statement was an error of judgement which she deeply regretted, RNZ reported.
She said she took the integrity of Parliament very seriously but on that day - her first question time as a minister - she made the wrong decision.
The committee will decide whether to hold her in contempt of Parliament and if so what to do about that. It can hand out punishments ranging from prison to censure, or it could decide she is not in contempt.
It has to report to Parliament, not the government, and it cannot do that until the House comes back from recess on 20 June.
The release this week of the interim report of the Independent Electoral Review Panel provided a flurry of interest because among its recommendations were lowering the voting age to 16 and extending the Parliamentary term from the current three years to four.
Advocates for lowering the age celebrated while ACT's David Seymour described the recommendations as "a grab bag of Green Party policies"'.
The Greens said other parties shouldn't politicise the report and should "listen to the experts".
Hipkins again made clear he was not going to do anything about the voting age.
Changing it would need a 75 percent affirmative vote in Parliament and Hipkins said it just was not there.
He has previously said he will not bring a bill to Parliament that is doomed to fail.
As for extending the Parliamentary term, that is something politicians want but the main parties are wary of going there.
During one of the TV debates before the last election, Jacinda Ardern and Judith Collins agreed it should be extended and Collins commented "let's do it then".
Nothing happened.
This time, Hipkins said it was an issue that would be decided by voters but did not commit to anything.
Voters had their chance in 1990, when there was a referendum on extending the term to four years, and nearly 70 percent said no.
During debates before it took place it became clear the main reason for opposing a longer term was that people did not trust governments to get anything right and were not going to give them an extra year to get everything wrong before they could be booted out.
Before Michael Wood took centre stage this week attention was being paid to ACT and its prospects of being a powerful partner should National lead the next government.
Stuff's Malpass drew attention to figures which showed that while ACT and the Greens both won 10 seats last election, based on the polls ACT now appeared to be the third-largest party in Parliament.
He cited recent polls: Greens 7 percent, ACT 11 percent; Greens 8.1 percent, ACT 10.8 percent; Greens 7 percent, ACT 12.7 percent.
Another Stuff report was headlined "Underestimate David Seymour at your peril", written by Andrea Vance.
"If you haven't been paying attention, it's time to start taking ACT seriously," she said.
"The protest vote was once an important factor in NZ First's success. Opinion polls would often underestimate their vote share, because at the last minute supporters of the legacy parties would throw their party vote to Winston Peters.
"In many ways, Seymour is the new Peters, sucking up his support - and many of his populist tricks - albeit with a 21st century twist."
Vance said ACT was also gaining support in its own right.
"Half a decade ago, you couldn't have paid people to go to an ACT rally. Now Seymour is charging for the privilege."
Finally: The Green Party's Ōhāriu candidate Stephanie Rodgers is launching her campaign with a pole dancing show at Wellington's Fringe Bar on 22 June. She is the pole dancer.
Peter Wilson is a life member of Parliament's press gallery, 22 years as NZPA's political editor and seven as parliamentary bureau chief for NZ Newswire. This article was first published HERE
5 comments:
I was enjoying the article until I followed the link to the pole (poll) dancing candidate.
So the ‘river of filth’ guy’s one credible explanation was that he got confused while filling out an online form.
Oops sorry IRD I really didn’t meant to enter the business loan as an asset on my statement of accounts. My bad. Let me deny it 12 times before admitting my error.
"For a competent minister - and he has shown himself NOT to be that - Wood has got himself into a real muddle" - There. Fixed it!
It's all very well to say Wood's wasn't seeking to make a pecuniary advantage, but anyone who can personally dismiss $13k-$16k in my book is not someone I want looking out for my best interests. They are either overpaid (which is likely the case here) or they're likely 'rich pricks' who haven't had to really work in this world (again possible?). Either way (including if he was just too busy to deal with a conflict of interest no matter how minor in his view) he should be gone - preferably by lunchtime!
Followed that (poll) link as well, it is well worth it. Biggest laugh I have had all year. Aoroatea in the 21st Century.
Post a Comment