Wigram MP Megan Woods won't contest seat at next election
Senior Labour MP Megan Woods has announced she will stand as a list-only candidate at the next election.
Woods has held the Wigram seat since 2011.
Announcing the move on Facebook, she said it had been a difficult decision, but she could not commit to serving a full six-year boundary cycle.
"When I first stood, I made a commitment to myself - I'd only run if I could commit to serving the full six-year boundary cycle.
"In 2014 and 2019, when we had new boundaries, I could say 'absolutely yes' to a six-year commitment. This time, I can't."
Woods held several important roles in the last Labour government, including Energy Minister, Housing Minister and Infrastructure Minister.
She succeeded former deputy Prime Minister Jim Anderton in the seat, which he had held since MMP was established in 1996.
Before that, Anderton was MP for the former Sydenham seat from 1984-96.
"So now, it's time for me to support a new Labour candidate for Wigram," Woods said. "Someone who will earn your trust and carry forward our shared values, commitment and vision, just as Jim did with me."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
Lessons in bipartisanship from a de facto single-party state
At the national infrastructure conference, politicians from both major parties talked a big game about bipartisanship. But their actions tell a different story. The opening keynote at Infrastructure New Zealand's annual conference, Building Nations, was titled 'A Bipartisan Vision to Drive Infrastructure Investment'. It was a highly relevant headline. 'Bipartisanship' is the big buzzword in infrastructure right now. The speaker was Andrew Tan, a high-ranking civil servant in Singapore, talking about some of his country's major projects. That's right, New Zealand is learning about bipartisanship from a country that has had the same party in power since 1959. The second international address was by Dr Alex Katsanos, who spoke about the national infrastructure plan in his home country of Hong Kong. Yes, the place where only pro-Beijing 'patriots' are allowed to run for office and opposition parties have been barred from office and forced to disband. Both Singapore and Hong Kong are remarkable success stories of using infrastructure to support rapid economic growth. New Zealand can learn many things from them. Tan detailed Singapore's massive public housing programme, its urban greening and river cleanups. All highly commendable – but it wasn't achieved through bipartisanship. I asked Tan after his speech if it was ironic for New Zealand to look to Singapore for lessons on bipartisanship. He assured me that 'we do have an opposition, and it's growing stronger' [the Workers' Party currently has 12 of 99 seats in parliament, its largest-ever contingent] and the opposition supported the government's infrastructure programme. 'For Singapore, we've always seen the challenge as more external than internal, which is why it's necessary for us to have a very cohesive government, a cohesive society, and for everyone to work together.' Large infrastructure firms have consistently demanded more bipartisan long-term infrastructure planning. That's because big stuff takes a really long time to build. The infrastructure industry wants more certainty to know it can invest, hire staff and plan for the future. When politicians keep cancelling each other's projects, it creates a shock to the system and leaves less faith in the market. Both National and Labour have promised they're working on it. 'We are genuinely trying to achieve as much consensus on these big issues as we can,' said infrastructure minister Chris Bishop. Opposition infrastructure spokesperson Kieran McAnulty, sitting next to him on stage during an afternoon panel discussion, agreed. 'The stop-start-stop-start, we've got to end it.' The problem is that it is easy to say your opponents should be bipartisan in supporting your ideas. It's harder to agree to support your opponents' ideas. Both parties have been highly ideological in their infrastructure decisions. In 2017, the incoming Labour-led government scrapped a series of major highways. In 2023, the incoming National-led government scrapped light rail in Auckland and Wellington and the iRex project for new Interislander ferries. When I asked Bishop about this after his speech, he said, 'Those particular projects – that we campaigned on cancelling – actually, most people think were too expensive, unaffordable, unconsentable and unbuildable.' Which is entirely fair from a political standpoint; the government has the mandate to cancel those projects. But it's not bipartisanship either. Labour and the Greens may have been happy to negotiate a reset of those projects, but they certainly didn't want them scrapped. It's not just about big attention-grabbing projects. The industry leaders in the room were more frustrated about the 212 Kāinga Ora housing projects and 100 school builds the government has cancelled since 2023, disrupting a pipeline of contracts and employment that many businesses thought they could rely on. Bishop was asked about this twice, once in a media standup and once on stage by moderator Katie Bradford. Both times, he obfuscated, pointing out that Kāinga Ora built more homes in 2024 than 2023 – but not admitting any fault or even acknowledging that the cancellations happened. Labour MPs were willing to acknowledge some mistakes. McAnulty said some of the 2017 projects shouldn't have been cancelled. Chris Hipkins admitted Auckland Light Rail had become a mess and his government overestimated how much they could do in a three-year term. Of course, it's much easier to admit failures when you're in opposition, but it left Bishop in the awkward position of arguing that the two sides needed to meet in the middle, while maintaining that his government had never done anything wrong and was right to cancel all the other side's projects. Hipkins complained about the government's empty rhetoric: 'The current government believes that bipartisanship means saying what they're going to do and then telling everybody else they have to agree with it.' He said Labour had attempted to compromise by attending the government's Infrastructure Investment Summit in March, with some caveats around the use of Public-Private-Partnerships, 'and then we had our attempts to compromise manipulated, misrepresented and used to attack us by the current government. That isn't going to create an environment where bipartisanship is going to be embraced and is going to be endured.' Bishop insists his issue isn't a matter of cars vs trams, it's about good project selection and management – 'we've got to make sure we're building the right projects at the right time'. But he's also a highly opinionated guy whose definition of 'the right projects' is highly correlated to the party whose idea it was. That's not to excuse Labour either. In government, it had a particularly bad record of excluding the opposition from decision-making, to the extent that National had no idea how much the iRex project had blown out until it received a post-election update from Treasury. Given their track records, neither party's words are worth too much. McAnulty and Bishop sat on stage together in front of a huge room of executives who were braying for bipartisanship and promised them exactly what they asked for. But it's hard not to believe both would prefer to govern more like Singapore.
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Concern drivers could pay more with new road user charges
Private companies will need to keep the costs of running the government's new road user charges scheme as low as possible, the AA says. The government is inching closer to replacing petrol tax with electronic road user charges on all light vehicles, in what Transport Minister Chris Bishop calls the biggest shake-up of road funding in half a century. He says it'll be fairer and will be like paying a power bill or Netflix each month and will be in place by 2027. The changes will put an end to the existing two-tier system, in which petrol users pay a fuel excise duty of about 70 cents a litre at the pump, while diesel, electric and heavy vehicles pay paper-based road user charges based on distance travelled. However, Labour says the timing of the coalition's transition to a universal road user charges system risks "clobbering" motorists with more costs. AA's policy director Martin Glynn said his organisation was also worried about how much motorists would have to pay under the new scheme. He told Morning Report he was unsure if it would be more expensive. At present the minimum road user charge kicked in once a light vehicle had travelled 1000km. That was $76 and $12-$13 for an administration fee. With private providers being brought in to run the revised scheme they would need to be making money, Glynn said. "We really want to see the administration costs be as low as possible." He agreed with the minister that with more vehicles becoming more fuel efficient, the current petrol tax penalised those with older vehicles. "It's become more unfair over time and it's going to become more unfair if we don't change." The current system of buying RUCs was "a bit clunky", he said. Those using diesel or a heavy vehicle purchased RUCs online from the NZ Transport Agency or they could go to an agent. Motorists needed to keep an eye on their odometer to ensure they stayed up to date. The other problem was the the RUC came in the mail and needed to be displayed on the dashboard. AA supported Bishop's plan to make the system fully electronic. Annual warrant of fitness checks were the main way to ensure compliance at present. "But it's fair to say it's difficult to enforce being an annual system so there's a fair degree of evasion and avoidance and that's something that will have to be addressed in the transition." Heavy vehicles already have an ERUC, a device in the trucks that monitors kilometres and location.
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Could motorists pay more under road user charges?
Private companies will need to keep the costs of running the government's new road user charges scheme as low as possible, the AA says. The government is inching closer to replacing petrol tax with electronic road user charges on all light vehicles, in what Transport Minister Chris Bishop calls the biggest shake-up of road funding in half a century. He says it'll be fairer and will be like paying a power bill or Netflix each month and will be in place by 2027. The changes will put an end to the existing two-tier system, in which petrol users pay a fuel excise duty of about 70 cents a litre at the pump, while diesel, electric and heavy vehicles pay paper-based road user charges based on distance travelled. However, Labour says the timing of the coalition's transition to a universal road user charges system risks "clobbering" motorists with more costs. AA's policy director Martin Glynn said his organisation was also worried about how much motorists would have to pay under the new scheme. He told Morning Report he was unsure if it would be more expensive. At present the minimum road user charge kicked in once a light vehicle had travelled 1000km. That was $76 and $12-$13 for an administration fee. With private providers being brought in to run the revised scheme they would need to be making money, Glynn said. "We really want to see the administration costs be as low as possible." He agreed with the minister that with more vehicles becoming more fuel efficient, the current petrol tax penalised those with older vehicles. "It's become more unfair over time and it's going to become more unfair if we don't change." The current system of buying RUCs was "a bit clunky", he said. Those using diesel or a heavy vehicle purchased RUCs online from the NZ Transport Agency or they could go to an agent. Motorists needed to keep an eye on their odometer to ensure they stayed up to date. The other problem was the the RUC came in the mail and needed to be displayed on the dashboard. AA supported Bishop's plan to make the system fully electronic. Annual warrant of fitness checks were the main way to ensure compliance at present. "But it's fair to say it's difficult to enforce being an annual system so there's a fair degree of evasion and avoidance and that's something that will have to be addressed in the transition." Heavy vehicles already have an ERUC, a device in the trucks that monitors kilometres and location.
