Editorial: Suspended Transport Minister Michael Wood’s egregious error of judgment

Editorial

EDITORIAL

The situation that led to the Transport Minister being stood down by Prime Minister Chris Hipkins this week cannot be overstated for its egregious potential conflicts of interest.

A day after the Herald revealed Michael Wood continued to own $13,000 of Auckland Airport shares - an investment we now know he was told to sell no less than 12 times since 2020 - he was relieved of his duty.

It is a duty seriously compromised. Hipkins described Wood’s ownership of the stock while he was regulating the aviation industry as “not acceptable”. But neither, certainly, is the Prime Minister’s explanation as “one of those life admin tasks that he doesn’t seem to have gotten around to”.

The shareholding throws a new perspective on Wood’s light rail project to the airport. In the face of persistent criticism and opposition, Wood has pressed on with the $14.6 billion track from the city centre to the airport, with an underground line emerging in his Mt Roskill electorate before continuing to the airport via Māngere.

There is today’s proposed sale of airport shares, where Wood’s wife, Julie Fairey, is scheduled to vote on whether the city offloads its 18 per cent shareholding to offset the council’s $325 million deficit. Fairey has had to hastily update her declaration of interests for the council and officials have been reviewing whether she can still be permitted to vote on the motion.

Yesterday, it was further revealed Wood declined North Shore Aerodrome’s application for airport authority status, even while he owned shares in Auckland Airport, a potential competitor. Wood’s decision about the application was made in 2021 when he held ministerial responsibility for aviation, which includes regulating airports. In a letter to the airport last year, Wood noted the Airports Authorities Act gives ministers discretion on whether or not to grant authority status and allows them discretion on the criteria to make the final call.

Then, how can he return as Minister for Auckland after clutching to a shareholding in a key plank of the city’s infrastructure?

Each of these scenarios presents the clear risks of interests vested and the potential for conflict and should have prompted Wood to divest. That he hadn’t indicates a dismal lack of nous - enough to question his competence as a minister.

All previous assessments of Wood pointed to a hardworking MP, an effective minister, and an asset to the Government. But this lapse comes on the heels of issues with Jan Tinetti being referred to Parliament’s Privileges Committee for allegedly misleading the House; Stuart Nash being stripped of all portfolios after passing on Cabinet discussions to donors; and Kiri Allan having to apologise after lambasting RNZ for failing to promote her partner.

It is difficult to disagree with Opposition leader Christopher Luxon’s assessment of the Prime Minister’s actions as “soft”.

Taken together, doubts are inevitable over whether this ministerial executive cares for the rudimentary rules that bind a Cabinet into a cohesive and trustworthy Government.