His comments about not being a winner in a contest between diversity and experience were interpreted by this newspaper as meaning that his low placing on National’s list was at least partly due to his being a male.
That created a storm of controversy and Mr Woodhouse was quick to distance himself from the ODT story, which in one interview he said had made him sound like a toy-throwing misogynist.
We do not think that the father of three girls is any such thing. We do think that the point Mr Woodhouse was trying to make — that MPs such as himself, with considerable experience and undoubted skills, are being jettisoned by political parties of all stripes in an effort to appear more representative of New Zealand as a whole — was worthy of measured debate.
Diversity is a good thing, a concept which all, including Mr Woodhouse and the National party, agree on.
But there are also certain practicalities of being the government — which National may very well be in a position to form on current polling — which Mr Woodhouse has, quite correctly, raised.
None of the top four of National’s list, including its leader, have held a ministerial warrant. Although they are very capable people and both Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop have extensive work histories in Parliamentary offices, that is not the same as being in Cabinet.
Of its top 20, just six have ministerial experience. One of them will be the Speaker and two will likely take the foreign affairs and trade negotiations portfolios, roles which of a necessity will mean they are out of New Zealand frequently.
National sternly criticised Labour during its first term for the naivety and inexperience of its Cabinet: it has left itself open for exactly the same accusation to be levelled at it.
Someone within the National party hierarchy obviously felt that the face of the former police, workplace relations and immigration minister did not fit any more. Mr Woodhouse himself clearly thinks so, referring to not being part of the "caucus club".
But looking at National’s list, which despite its rhetoric of being a strong team looks rather threadbare in places, the question has to be asked why National has not tried to harness a capable MP, from an important city, and find a suitable role for him?
Instead, a perfectly decent man and more than capable MP has been cast aside amid rancorous scenes, and a big question mark has been left over National’s commitment to Dunedin.
Whatever residents of the left-leaning city may think of the right-leaning Mr Woodhouse politically, he has always been a staunch advocate for Dunedin — often in the background but sometimes in the vanguard on issues such as the new Dunedin hospital.
Some opponents might have felt he was grandstanding on this matter, but there is no doubt that the former private hospital chief executive has been speaking from the heart as well as the head when demanding that the government build the new hospital to the original scope of the detailed business case. Without his continued high-profile on the issue, it is doubtful National would have eventually decided to fund the detailed business case should it be elected.
The heat of the reaction to Mr Woodhouse’s comments also meant that little light has been shed on some other interesting observations he made. Most notable of those was his comment that National remains at risk of losing voters to Act New Zealand.
National, like Labour, does need to hold the centre to win office. But he is correct that current polling suggests National — and Labour for that matter — appear to be losing core support to parties to the right or to the left of them.
Not every party can be centrist, the centre is too small for everyone to claim it. Mr Woodhouse evidently feels National runs the risk of being outflanked by its likely junior coalition partner.
Given the calibre of some of the recent withdrawals from Act’s list in recent days, the dilemma that Mr Woodhouse was likely hinting at, that a moderate conservative voice could be drowned out by an extremist one, does not seem to be an unfounded one.
