Table of Contents
In brief
- Labour letting Michael Wood run again suggests a shallow talent bench.
- Wood called anti-mandate protesters a “river of filth” as a Cabinet minister, and allowing him back risks further alienating a significant percentage of voters.
- He ignored 12 instructions to sell shares in Auckland Airport and failed to declare them.
- His conduct showed both poor judgment and carelessness. Voters dumped him in 2023.
Wood was a significant player in the previous Ardern–Hipkins government. He was a senior Cabinet minister during COVID.
His conduct during one of the most divisive periods in recent New Zealand history said it all. Certainly, it added to the mockery of former prime minister Jacinda Ardern’s signature “Be Kind” rhetoric.
Dehumanising comments from a senior minister
This contradiction was most clear when Wood dismissed Wellington protesters opposing vaccine mandates and lockdowns as a “river of filth”, a phrase he said at the time was chosen “with precision”.
Speaking as a Cabinet minister, Wood’s comments were widely seen as dehumanising thousands of citizens, many of them vaccinated, many of them working class, Māori, Pasifika, and long-time Labour voters who felt ignored and marginalised.
While some will argue his comments reflected the frustration many New Zealanders felt at the time, the language nevertheless deepened an already widening social divide.
Arrogance followed by incompetence
As Transport Minister, Wood repeatedly failed to sell shares in Auckland International Airport despite being instructed by the Cabinet Office to do so on at least 12 occasions. He also failed to properly declare those shares on the public register of pecuniary interests.
Wood effectively blew up his political career over a minor investment of roughly $16,000. His unwillingness to resolve such a petty issue points to either a serious lack of judgment or incompetence that voters found difficult to excuse.
Ministers are held to higher standards for a reason. Trust and transparency are the currency of government.
Allowing him to return without a clear public reckoning risks alienating the voters that rejected him in Mt Roskill, a seat Labour has held since it was created in 1999.
There has been little public explanation of what has changed. Just an assumption that time heals all.
What is Chris Hipkins thinking?
This is where the issue moves beyond Michael Wood and lands squarely on Labour leader Chris Hipkins. If leadership is about judgment, what does this say about his leadership? And what does it say about Labour’s talent bench if a self-sabotaging former minister who has already been rejected by voters is still considered a viable option?
Political comebacks are possible. Parties often give second chances. But does this particular comeback help Labour rebuild trust among voters, or does it risk signalling that the lessons from that period have not been fully taken on board?
