Southern Say and Mr Woodhouse have had our moments in the fortnight since he discovered that National had stuck him in the nether reaches of its party list and he quit in dismay, but our opinion that he has been a much more effective MP than National gives him credit for remains undimmed.
Three high-level speeches this week demonstrated his attention to detail, ability to marshal an effective counter-argument, and also his reverence for the more geeky side of life as a politician.
The first came during what is still a novelty for Parliament, a debate on a declaration of inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Unlike some of their overseas colleagues, New Zealand judges cannot strike down laws deemed to be unconstitutional but, thanks to a law change this term, they can issue a declaration that a law is inconsistent with the Act. Such a declaration means that Parliament must reconsider the law again, including a debate such as the one held on Tuesday.
In this instance the voting age was up for debate, as the courts have held that the edict that you cannot vote until you are 18 discriminates against those younger than that.
"I think it’s worth pointing out that, as some have already said, age in law is arbitrary," Mr Woodhouse said.
"I’ll point out a few things that a 16-year-old can’t do, even after any change in legislation.
"Now, they may sound flippant, but the purpose is to highlight the arbitrariness of age: can’t get a full driver’s licence; can’t buy a Lotto ticket; can’t enter into contracts, can’t buy alcohol; can’t buy firecrackers; can’t enter a casino; can’t buy cigarettes."
Why not 15, he went on to ask: "The justification for 15 years old would be that they would turn 18 years old in the term of the subsequent Parliament. It’s an easy argument to make, only it wasn’t made."
Mr Woodhouse has experience in Bill of Rights arguments: he was on the privileges committee when it considered the case which started the ball rolling towards the point of declarations of inconsistency, Attorney General v Taylor. In that case jailhouse lawyer and sometime Dunedin resident Arthur Taylor convinced a judge that the prohibition against prisoners voting was unconstitutional, but still lost because there was nothing the judge could do about it.
That is because one of the pillars of our political system — let alone the justice system — is the concept of parliamentary sovereignty; in crude terms, that Parliament is top dog in the legal kennel and what it says goes.
Mr Woodhouse was heckled by other MPs as he pointed out the importance of that concept, an irony which did not escape him.
"This is a sovereign place. This place decides what legislation comes and goes, not the courts, when it comes to anything other than judge-made law.
"I’m just a little bit worried about the nature of some of the speeches that we’ve heard this afternoon that seem to be perhaps less than strident in that vital constitutional principle."
But the voting age question was not to go away, as the first government Bill of the day was the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill, first reading.
The government knows it cannot lower the voting age for general elections — that is an entrenched provision in the Electoral Act and requires a super majority to be altered, a level of support such a change does not have.
But the voting age in local body elections is not entrenched, hence this late bid to drop the voting age in council elections to 16. This, again, is an issue Mr Woodhouse is well familiar with.
"As a member of Parliament based in Dunedin and with the University of Otago in the electorate that I stand in, the question of 16 and 17-year-olds being eligible to vote has come up on a number of occasions.
"I have been very clear that while I think that’s a conversation worth having, surely the goal for political engagement right now is to make sure greater numbers of people who are currently, presently eligible to vote actually do so.
"Because a robust democracy actually relies on active participation."
"Nobody on this side of the House is afraid of the conversation. But let’s have it in a proper and orderly fashion, and this isn’t that."
Fast forward to Thursday and the standing orders review debate.
Every term Parliament assesses its internal rules (standing orders) and refines and — hopefully — improves them for the next three years. That process ends with the last Parliamentary debate before the adjournment debate, and furnished Mr Woodhouse with what he anticipated could be his last contribution to the House.
"It’s rather appropriate that it be about the rules of this place, because I have, I think, over the years gained a reputation for being one of the ‘rules guys’."
The issues raised were useful: whether standing orders provided for proper and effective scrutiny of the executive, and whether efforts to make Parliament’s sitting schedule more family friendly had worked.
"With that, I wish those who will be tasked with the responsibility of running this place and our democracy under the new standing orders the very best.
"It’s probably not going to be me, but that’s OK — I won’t even be watching. Cheers."
He probably won’t even be reading either, but cheers to you too.
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins even took the time to give Mr Woodhouse a special sendoff in his adjournment debate speech, although it was hardly a kindly one.
And not forgetting
It was also a big week for Invercargill Labour list MP Liz Craig, who, like Mr Woodhouse, suffered the disdain of her party’s list ranking committee.
She, too, made several notable speeches, especially on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Provision of Breast Cancer Screening Services) Amendment Bill, in which she detailed why Labour was going to support a National member’s Bill, but also cogently outlined what concerns she had with it, her medical background well to the fore.
While Dr Craig was never a limelight-grabber, every party needs backroom MPs as well, and in her specialist fields she was more effective than many in tackling and explaining complex issues of equity and access in healthcare.
And Penny Simmonds, Dr Craig’s National Party adversary in Invercargill, had the honour of snaring five minutes in the adjournment debate. Ms Simmonds has been quiet of late on her favourite subject, Te Pukenga, but not on Thursday.
She came out all guns blazing on the polytechnic mega merger — which is, lest we forget, one of Mr Hipkins’ achievements.
"It is hard to believe just how much damage this government could do to our valuable tertiary education sector in such a short time, and that is without even starting to talk about the carnage they have inflicted on the early childhood education sector.
"Grand, ideology-driven ideas, public money spent unfettered, and a lack of self-reflection to know what they don’t know have enormously damaged our tertiary and early childhood education sectors."
