As new Labour leader David Shearer embarks on the daunting task of reconnecting his party with the people who used to vote for it, he could do worse than take note of recent developments in Britain.

There, Liam Byrne, the British Labour Party’s spokesman on work and pensions, has written an extraordinary article calling for a radical rethink of the welfare policy his party first introduced almost seven decades ago. …

Byrne lauds him for his vision, but says he would be worried by the way his system has “skewed social behaviour” by creating long-term dependency. “For him ‘idleness’ was an evil every bit as insidious as disease or squalor,” writes Byrne. “He wanted a responsible government taking determined action to create work, but a responsible workforce too.”

Michael Joseph Savage, the architect of New Zealand’s welfare state, believed everybody, as a right of citizenship, was entitled to “a reasonable standard of living in the days when they are unable to look after themselves, whether it be because of old age or physical infirmity”. However, he also believed in the dignity of the working man.

It is inconceivable that Savage and his colleagues ever viewed welfare as a valid alternative to work, as some of their successors appear to do.

Labour campaigned at the last election that working poor with children will get an extra $10/week and those not working with children will get an extra $70/week. What an awful incentive and message they were sending out.

In New Zealand, as in Britain, the challenge for Labour is to reconnect the party with the working man, and woman.

A good start would be for David Shearer to announce the scrapping of their 2011 policy to pay beneficiaries $70/week more to not be in employment.

Among those most depressed on election night were probably many teachers, their trade unions, and school principals.

I’m not so sure about “many” teachers. Most teachers don’t give a stuff about politics and just want to get on with teaching. It is the teacher politicians who devote most of their energy to educational politics that would have been depressed, but they are a minority of teachers.

The first John Key-led government made a priority of ensuring children can read and write – the foundation for all later learning – and parents getting school reports in plain English.

Known by its shorthand name, national standards, the policy was steadfastly adhered to by Mr Key, who consulted educational experts before the 2008 election on what would make the most difference to the one in five children who leave school illiterate and innumerate.

The policy was equally steadfastly opposed by the primary teachers’ union and the Principals’ Federation, chiefly on ideological grounds.

Their biggest fear is that once data on how schools are doing under national standards is reported to the Education Ministry, it will be available to the whole community, which will learn which of the schools they fund from their taxes perform best.

Outraegous. I’m waiting for Labour to announce a policy that they will ban league tables not only for schools, but also for hospitals. It is appalling that Tony Ryall publishes which DHBs have the quickest times for A&E waiting times and cancer radiation treatment. Not all DHBs have the same sort of patients, and Ryall’s hospital league tables should be banned as they are unfair to the hospitals not at the top.

But it is criminal that up to 20 per cent of students leave school unable to read, write and do arithmetic.

Former Labour Party president and new Howard League for Penal Reform chief executive Mike Williams gets it: he is desperate to find literacy teachers willing to help prison inmates. Why would that be necessary if current education policy works as well as teachers claim? After all, those jailbirds went to school somewhere.

The NZ educational system works very well for the average student. However it works very badly for the bottom 20% and not that great for the top 10%.

If children who are failing can be helped to succeed by a different prescription – think kura kaupapa or Rudolf Steiner, for example – the trial is worth conducting to see what can be learned from it.

Absolutely. A great win for ACT and for New Zealand.

Labour has abandoned all hope of taking votes from National.

It is now targeting the Green Party’s support instead. That is the only explanation for its bizarre proposal to extend the in-work tax credit to families who are not working. …

Any policy that reduces the incentives for individuals to become self-sufficient should be treated with great caution. It is neither in the interests of beneficiaries nor their children for beneficiaries to become permanently disconnected from the workforce. Adults benefit from feeling useful. Children benefit from the example of seeing their parents take responsibility for themselves.

The in-work tax credit was created for a specific purpose. It should not be used to increase benefits by stealth.

It is worth remembering. If you have kids and are in work, Labour say they will give you an extra $10/week only. But if you are on a benefit with kids, then Labour will give you an extra $70/week.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

If living standards were determined by government decree, Labour’s new industrial relations policy would be a breakthrough contribution to an age-old debate.

Sadly for the low-paid workers Phil Goff’s party is trying to woo, wishful thinking has nothing to do with living standards.

The consequence of hiking the minimum wage from $13 to $15 an hour, as Labour is proposing to do, will be to deny more unskilled young job seekers the opportunity to get a foot on the job ladder. The consequence of telling international film producers it is our way or the highway will be for them to pack their bags. And the consequence of requiring all employers in an industry to offer the same minimum set of terms and conditions will be to ship more jobs off overseas.

It is arguably the great job destruction policy we have ever seen.

The only winners from Labour’s work and wages policy, unveiled on Tuesday, will be unions, which can expect a temporary increase in members and influence.

These are the same union that not only fund the Labour Party, but actually are members of it, and have significant voting rights with it?

Circumstances vary from workplace to workplace. To succeed in the global market, businesses have to be flexible. Rewards should be shared fairly, but the way that is done should be a matter for shareholders, managers and employees to work out, not bureaucrats in the new Workplace Commission that Labour proposes to create.

Oh it won’t be bureaucrats on the Workplace Commission. It will be full of former or future Labour MPs.

Should the mainstream media and its self-regulatory body become part of a government? Hell, no. Even the most democratic of administrations should be kept well away from independent media outlets.

Sadly for the Dom Post, the same day Labour released its policy which indicates their interest in doing exactly that, and merging the Press Council and the BSA, so that all media come under Government control.

Labour have spent three years blaming the media for their unpopularity. They just love the idea of being able to appoint people who can fine editors for not being “fair” to them.

The word “bullying” does not even get close to describing the reign of terror a gang of Hutt Valley High School thugs imposed on their fellow pupils.

Serious sexual assault, extreme violence and brutal humiliation are more accurate terms for the pack attacks on nine tormented Year 9 boys over two weeks in late 2007.

The sickening details are laid out in a damning report by Ombudsman David McGee. One by one, the victims were hunted down and violated with objects including a drill bit, scissors, a craft knife, a plank of wood, a shoe, a cellphone and a screwdriver. According to police reports, victims screamed in pain during the attacks. One endured up to 10 such assaults. Another was kicked in the face when he refused to kiss his attackers’ shoes after they had sexually violated him.

The response of the school’s authorities to such systemic violence defies belief. Having failed to establish proper systems to prevent and detect such attacks in the first place, the school then failed to safeguard the well-being of the victims and ensure the complaints were dealt with properly. They did not inform the victims’ parents or alert police or Child, Youth and Family to what were plainly allegations of serious sexual offending.

Even worse, the acting principal at the time, Steve Chapman, and the then-chairwoman of the board of trustees, Susan Pilbrow, played down the seriousness of the assaults. Mr Chapman’s decision, backed by Ms Pilbrow, to stand down the six attackers for three to five days obviously failed to reflect the gravity of their offending or send a message that violence would not be tolerated. The school’s refusal to back down from a statement that it had acted “reasonably and responsibly” confirmed concerns that it had not acknowledged the seriousness of the attacks.

It was a failure of the most basic kind – to keep kids safe.

I wonder whether those in charge at the time are still involved at the school. Their website states Steve Chapman is the Associate Principal still. Ms Pilbrow does not appear to be on the Board of Trustees anymore.

UPDATE: NZ Herald reports Mr Chapman may be sacked by the Board. It is hard to see how he could continue in the job and believe the school is serious about ensuring this never happens again.

But the new administration should think hard about another part of the convention. One protocol therein requires signatories to make the dissemination of racist and xenophobic material via computer systems a crime. It might also outlaw Holocaust denial and what some groups, deeming themselves to be persecuted, call “hate speech” online. The United States, the UK and Ireland have refused to sign that protocol. New Zealand should, too.

When states consciously choose to ban the traffic in ideas, they take a giant stride toward control of their populace. Freedom of speech – one of the pillars that buttress democracy – is its most potent when its practitioners advocate the unpopular, the unconventional, even the downright nasty.

Informed public debate, which of necessity includes ridicule and derision, is always the most effective antidote to racism, sexism, xenophobia … Banning criticism – as this protocol would do, at least in cyberspace – merely drives racists, sexists, xenophobes underground and gives them cause to claim martyrdom.

I blogged on this issue a couple of weeks ago. The answer to offensive speech is not to ban it, but to counter it.

It is timely to repeat a quote from Noam Chomsky:

If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.

One of the few Chomsky quotes I love.

It is inconceivable that the “cradle to the grave” social security system envisaged by former Labour prime minister Michael Joseph Savage resembled anything like the welfare state we have today. He dreamed of a temporary safety net to help those down on their luck when times were tough. What we have is a system in which 10 per cent of the workforce is on a benefit, 222,000 children live in benefit- dependent homes and thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds are being paid to sit around and do nothing.

It is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue and one which National is promising to fix.

And Labour is promising to oppose. The more beneficiaries there are, the more votes they get.

Criticisms that the measures are overly-harsh or interfering ignore the fact that there is something deeply flawed with a system that hands over cash to people as young as 16 without expecting something back in return. While there are job-search requirements, they are next to useless for young people without the basic skills needed to secure employment. Requiring them to get up to speed in literacy and numeracy or to undergo trade or other training is not punitive, as some would cast it, but designed to allow them a better path through life.

Taxpayers also have every right to expect that payments to 16 and 17-year-olds are used for the purposes they are intended. It is not a “nanny state” intervention, as some would claim, given the fact that by definition IYB recipients have lost the backing of their parents or been forced to leave home and turn to the state for support.

Nanny state generally is interfering with people whom are independent and restricting their choices. Putting some rules in place for those who rely on the state for income is not in that category.

The leader of the Labour Party, Phil Goff, yesterday attempted to dismiss the latest opinion-poll results showing popular support for the party continuing to slump dramatically, but the fact is the dire results are only the latest in what appears to be an unstoppable decline. …

Even more worrying for Labour, given the way election campaigns nowadays are very much presidential-style campaigns focused on party leaders, is the fact that Goff himself is rating not far above invisibility in the preferred prime minister rankings.

Goff defends his 6% by saying Clark was much the same in 1996. But this is not a good comparison because back then left wing voters were not saying Jim Bolger was their preferred PM, but that Anderton and Peters were.

In July 1996, Colmar Brunton had Clark at 7%, Peters 19% (and was 29% in May), Anderton 6%(had been 24% a year earlier) and Bolger 27%. Bolger was less than Clark, Peters and Anderton.

Compare this to Key who is 9 times as high as Goff, and no other left wing politician features strongly.

Let us look at how opposition leaders have polled in July of election years:

• 2008 – Key was ahead of Clark
• 2005 – Brash 20%, Clark 40%
• 2002 – English 19%, Clark 48%
• 1999 – Clark 22%, Shipley 25%
• 1993 – Moore 14%, Peters 20%, Bolger 12%, Anderton 6%
• 1990 – Bolger 12%, Moore 12%, Muldoon 8%, Peters 15%, Palmer 15%
• 1987 – Bolger 14%, Lange 35%, Muldoon 13%,

So prior to 1999, other politicians such as Anderton, Peters and Muldoon took big chunks of the preferred PM ratings. That makes comparisons for the Opposition Leader less than useful. But since 1999 the polls have clearly shown that normally an opposition leader will poll around 20% – yet Goff is at 6%.

Politicians are not above the law.

They should not seek to be. For the third time in six years the Labour Party has been found to have breached the rules governing election advertising. The Electoral Commission has referred the matter to police. They should prosecute.

The breach is not as serious, or wilful, as Labour’s 2005 misuse of $824,000 of public money to subsidise its election campaign.

Certainly not as serious, but arguably more wilful. In 2005 they could claim they honestly thought that anything paid for by Parliament was not an election expense. In 2011, there is no way they could genuinely hold that view.

It would appear that the only way to convince Labour politicians they too must operate within the law is to hold them to account when they fail to do so. In 2005 police mystifyingly opted not to prosecute prime minister Helen Clark’s chief of staff, Heather Simpson, for exceeding Labour’ election spending limit, despite receiving legal advice that a prosecution would result in a conviction.

I blogged at length on the 2005 investigation. I found a degree of incompetence that was disturbing. The Police in fact investigated the wrong offence and didn’t even understand concepts such as strict liability. They have a chance to redeem themselves now.

The latest offence is similar. Labour campaign spokesman Grant Robertson has attributed it to a difference of opinion between the party and the commission over what constitutes advertising. Labour did not consider the postcard advertising, in part because it had received prior authorisation from the Parliamentary Service, he said. That is an irrelevance as Mr Robertson, a bright, capable new MP of whom his party has high hopes, should know.

Grant would indeed know this. All MPs should know this. It has been made clear by the Electoral Commission.

That role is filled by the Electoral Commission which offers any individual or organisation seeking to produce electioneering material an opportunity to have it vetted in advance.

To find out whether its postcard complied with the law Labour had only to submit it to the commission. It did not do so.

And this is why it had to be referred to the Police. Labour had a chance to get an opinion on it, and simply decided not to.

The lessons of the past have not been learnt. It is time for them to be reinforced.

It is bad enough that the public’s hard-earned money gets squandered on political bumf by all parties. It is even worse that Labour cannot be bothered complying with the rules when it does so. It has trifled with the law long enough. It should be stopped.

The question for the Police should be what message will it send out if they do not prosecute? I believe it will mean that the Electoral Commission will be a lame duck, if the Police take no action.

The challenge for the Police may be in deciding whom to prosecute, as it must be an individual, not a party. But a proper investigation should establish who in Labour made the decision to publish them and not seek an opinion from the Electoral Commission.

If any more evidence was needed that New Zealand’s creaking welfare system requires major reform, it was the news that gospel singer Alipate Liava’a drew the sickness benefit while training for a boxing match.

Mr Liava’a apparently has a form of tennis elbow that prevents him working yet, miraculously, it did not stop him going toe-to-toe with All Black giant Sonny Bill Williams.

The elbow was the latest in a run of poor health for Mr Liava’a, who was previously on the sickness benefit because of a problem with his voice. He says he would have told Work and Income about his fight with Williams, but he was too busy with his music and training I thto find the time.

Those who work for a living and whose taxes fund the $7.6 billion a year welfare bill will rightly be flabbergasted. It is difficult to decide which is worse – that Mr Liava’a saw nothing wrong with claiming a benefit intended for those too ill to work while preparing to take on a heavy-set professional athlete, or that his doctor honestly believed a dodgy elbow made him too infirm to get a job.

The doctor has some questions to answer also.

Unfortunately, it will give ammunition to those who hold the erroneous view that all beneficiaries are hopeless bludgers. That is not true. Many are genuinely too ill to work, and the mark of a civilised and compassionate society is how well they are supported.

It would be nice to do more for those who are genuinely not able to do any work at all.

Other recommendations are well worth considering, however. They include increasing the proportion of beneficiaries required to seek work from about a third now to more than three-quarters and cutting benefits for those who refuse to comply. Requiring solo parents to ensure their children attend school and have regular health checks, ensuring beneficiaries under 18 years old have a degree of adult supervision, and tying benefits for those with drug and alcohol problems to attendance at treatment programmes also have obvious merit.

Merit, apart from for those who gain politically from having as high a proportion as possible reliant on state support.

The threat of industrial action from lawyers opposed to the expansion of the Public Defence Service is a self-interested attempt to stay hitched to a taxpayer-funded gravy train.

Despite claims to the contrary, talk of legal aid lawyers working to rule in protest at the changes is primarily motivated by the same reason behind most industrial action – money. …

It is not hard to feel some sympathy for legal aid lawyers caught by the changes. The vast majority are scrupulously honest, yet the whole profession has been punished for the greed and misdeeds of a few.

But the profession had plenty of warning that the Government was concerned about the rising cost of legal aid and should have put its house in order. The failure to do so left Mr Power with little choice but to act. The threat of protests against the PDS should be seen for what it is – a last-ditch bid to get him to change his mind, motivated by a looming loss of taxpayer-funded income. He is right to stand his ground.

It is somewhat ironic that a National Government is partially nationalising part of the justice sector, but I thinks the changes are necessary. The status quo wasn’t defensible.

The $10 billion deficit for the first nine months of this year confirms, if confirmation was needed, that the last government made bad choices. At a time of plenty it chose to buy popularity rather than to save and invest for the future. Worse still, it created an expectation that the bounty would continue to flow in bad times as well as good.

Yep. Labour thought that the economy would never go into recession, ignoring that the tradeable sector had in fact been in recession since 2004/5.

It cannot – a point Prime Minister John Key and his ministers have been trying to get across in advance of next week’s Budget. New Zealand has to get back to living within its means. There are a number of obvious targets for a government looking for what Finance Minister Bill English has quaintly termed the “nice-to-haves”. They include the extension of welfare to families with incomes far in excess of the average wage, interest free student loans and the 65-year age of entitlement for superannuation.

I support increasing the age of eligibility for superannuation. It will happen one day also. But any increase would have to be signalled a good decade or so in advance, so don’t think any change to the age will help get the books back into surplus in this decade. Lifting the future age of retirement is important for the long-term sustainability of superannuation, but again that is a different issue to the shorter-term fiscal challenge.

Instead, Mr Key’s Government is taking aim at the KiwiSaver scheme introduced by its predecessor to tackle New Zealand’s chronically low savings rate.

Under the scheme, people who agree to set aside a percentage of their income for their retirement receive a one-off Government grant of $1000 and tax credits worth up to $1040 a year. The scheme has proved remarkably attractive. It now has almost 1.7 million members. However, Mr Key has classified it among the “nice-to-haves” and is signalling that the annual Government contribution will be reduced, probably halved.

He and his finance minister appear to believe the public will not be deterred by the change. If so, they are graduates of the same University of Spin and Hope as their Labour predecessors, who believed that scrapping interest on student loans would not increase the take-up rate. New Zealanders are not stupid. The year before loans were made interest free, 53 per cent of eligible students borrowed from the Government. By 2009 – the last year for which figures are available – that figure had increased to 71 per cent.

KiwiSaver membership involves sacrifices. Contributing the amount required to secure the maximum Government contribution means many members have to make choices between other “nice-to-haves” and even some essentials. However, they calculate that, together with employer contributions, the Government top-up makes the sacrifice worthwhile. Reduce the top-up and many will review their participation.

For most employees, they will still be getting a massive subsidy. Someone on $28,000 will still get around $2.50 into their KiwiSaver account for every $1 they put in. That’s a 150% return on investment compared to 10% most funds deliver. I doubt too many people will dump KiwiSaver becuase their return on investment is 150% instead of 200%.

Those who get most hard done by the Government’s changes are self-employed like me. As I pay both my employer and employee contribution, then I’ll personally be quite a bit worse off by the Government’s proposed changes. But I had been saving plenty anyway, prior to KiwiSaver, so to some degree the KiwiSaver subsidies were just a way to maximise my return. And the Government should be focusing its scarce tax dollars on those who most need it, not people like me.

The Government has a choice. It can encourage the current generation of workers to save more, or it can pander to the “grey” vote by maintaining the pretence that superannuation for all at age 65 is affordable when it is patently not. It cannot do both.

It has made the easy choice, not the right one.

The reality is the age does need to increase, but not until around 2025 by my calculations.

National MP Tau Henare’s plan for a private member’s bill allowing shops to open on Good Friday and Easter Sunday will be the ninth attempt in 15 years to bring some sense to trading laws long past their sell-by date.

This time, Parliament should seize the opportunity to repeal rules which are archaic and riddled with anomalies to the point of being ridiculous.

However, there is little to indicate the Government will have the courage to lead the way.

If history is anything to go by, Mr Henare’s bill will be considered as a conscience vote and fail at its first hurdle, defeated by the usual – and unusual – alliance of Labour, National and Green MPs. Those who vote against it will do so on the grounds of guarding workers’ rights or protecting the sanctity of the most important festival in the Christian calendar – or, in some cases, both.

The unholy alliance of unions and churches.

The list of anomalies is as laughable as it is long. A person can buy or sell a house on Good Friday or Easter Sunday, when real estate agents are allowed to open, but they cannot buy a bottle of bubbly to celebrate – unless they get it from the vineyard on which it was made.

A garden centre can open on Easter Sunday, but not Good Friday – a rule ignored by many as the huge demand easily brings in more than the $1000 fine. Bookstores at airports, train stations and other transport hubs can open, but those in shopping centres must stay closed. Perhaps most glaringly of all, brothels can open on Good Friday and Easter Sunday to sell sex, but those with bars are breaking the law if they sell alcohol.

It is hilarious that brothels can open, but not bars. I wonder if the brothels can sell alcohol?

The usual suspects defend their decisions to ban employees from earning overtime on those days, on the proposition that employers are so evil and callousthey they will break the law and force employees to work against their wills.

On Twitter the other day I asked a Labour activist if he could name a single employer that has done this. I said I’ve worked for around 20 employers and none forced me to work against my will. He also was unable to name a single employer – saying none of his former employers had. But he insisted that it was widespread all the same. Never mind the lack of emperical evidence.

But this got me thinking. Wouldn’t it be useful if the Government or Dept of Labour did a random scientific survey of employees in retailers, to ascertain how many currently have employers who force them to work on days they don’t want to, and also perhaps to look at annual leave taking – do they get to choose when to take annual leave, or does their employer over-ride their wishes.

It would be a great boon to informed debate to have some good data about how employees and employers currently interact.

Poor old Bill English. All the finance minister wants to do is sell things and all he ends up doing is bailing out failed private businesses.

Poor old taxpayers. They end up paying bills that run into the billions for those failures. …

Ideally, the company would be left to face the consequences of not reinsuring sufficiently and it would be allowed to fail.

However, that is simply not possible. AMI has more than 85,000 policyholders with 225,000 policies in Christchurch – about 35 per cent of the residential market in the city.

Ambiguity over whether claims on those policies would be fully paid out would make decisions on the rebuilding of the city difficult, and cause delay till AMI’s financial situation was clearer.

That, Mr English acknowledged, could have been several months away. Delays of that order would have disastrous consequences for the whole country, which needs to have the city functioning as normally it can again as soon as possible.

Sadly, I don’t think the Government had much choice.

I think there are lessons to be learnt here from both the SCF and the AMI collapses. They both were primarily based in one region, and with AMI especially, this has proven to be very unwise. People like to go with “local” companiees, but that means you are vulnerable to local shocks (literally). If your customer base is spread more evenly nation-wide, then you are better placed to survive.

Mr Goff’s leadership should be over. The party he leads is bereft of energy and bereft of ideas. Instead of looking like a government in waiting it looks like a dysfunctional rabble. What confidence can the public have in its ability to manage the affairs of the country when it cannot manage its own?

Looking at how Goff has managed the last couple of weeks, you do have to wonder how he would have handled a global recession, finance company collapses, two earthquakes and Pike River.

However, speculation about a move to oust Mr Goff is just that – speculation. Labour has no obvious alternative. Shane Jones is still too closely linked to pornography in the public mind, David Cunliffe has had zero impact as finance spokesman, David Parker is unknown to the public, Mr Shearer is too inexperienced politically and so is another well-regarded newbie, Grant Robertson, about whom the party may have to consider another question at some point. Is New Zealand ready for its first gay prime minister?

For my money, I think Grant will become New Zealand’s first (openly) gay Prime Minister, and I don’t think his sexuality will be of relevance to most New Zealanders.

Sometimes there are no good options; just choices between uncertain, least bad and bad options. Such is often the case for social workers dealing with the victims of child abuse. …

However, it is appropriate for Ms Bennett to reopen debate on the “whanau first” childcare policy implemented by the 1989 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, as she did at the weekend. The central tenet of the act is that children should not be separated from their extended families, cultures and ethnic backgrounds except as a last resort.

It is a noble sentiment but one that sugarcoats a harsh reality. Child abuse is learned behaviour. Children who are abused are more likely to grow up to abuse their own children than children raised in loving homes. If a father or mother has been abused it is likely that their brothers and sisters were also abused. Placing the victims of child abuse in the care of aunts and uncles sometimes perpetuates the abuse. It can also make it easier for abusers to gain access to their children.

I think, sadly, the current approach is not working, in that too many children who get removed from their nuclear family, still suffer abuse with their extended family.

As Winston Peters ponders the expense and bother of another tilt at Parliament, he will take heart from Labour leader Phil Goff’s equivocation on the subject of a post-election deal with the NZ First leader. Many voters will take a different view.

Mr Goff said yesterday that he had made no decision about a possible coalition with NZ First, but his other remarks were the verbal equivalent of throwing open the front door, handing Mr Peters the key to his liquor cabinet and inviting him to help himself to the whisky.

Heh, so true. And his line about how he won’t make a call until he knows if Winston makes it back is feeble – he made a call on Hone without knowing if Hone will be re-elected.

While Mr Goff has no doubts about Mr Peters’ reliability or trustworthiness, voters with longer memories do.

Mr Peters is, after all, the politician who railed against secretive big money donations to political parties then arranged for donations from wealthy backers to be funnelled to his party through a shadowy trust without the knowledge of fellow NZ First MPs or party officials.

He is also the politician who waved a sign saying “NO” in large letters when asked whether his party had received money from expatriate billionaire Owen Glenn, and who was subsequently found by the privileges committee to have “knowingly misled” Parliament over Mr Glenn’s $100,000 contribution towards his legal bills.

A verdict Labour to their shame voted against, despite evidence so strong it was well beyond reasonable doubt. Phone records shows Winston and Glenn on the phone, And around two minuites later Winston’s lawyer e-mailing Glenn asking him for money as discussed with his client a few minutes ago.

Mr Goff is desperate. He can feel the hot breath of ambitious colleagues on the back of his neck. However, it never pays to exhibit one’s desperation.

He would be better advised to put principle ahead of self-interest. Mr Peters’ unsavoury attacks on new immigrants and the politics of envy and fear he practises, are not compatible with Labour’s traditions.

This is what amazes me – Winston has spent his political career attacking Asians and immigrants, yet he is a hero to many on the left purely because he is also anti-National.

Prime Minister John Key has done the right thing by ruling out a deal with Mr Peters. Mr Goff should follow suit. It is not just parliamentary seats that are at stake but his credibility and judgment. There are times when leaders should forget political strategising and do the right thing. This is one of those times.

It won’t happen.

The appointment of former Defence Force chief Jerry Mateparae as the next governor-general is an inspired choice.

As the first Maori to head the Defence Force, Lieutenant General Mateparae made a point of steering clear of tokenism. …

In many respects his appeal is similar to that of John Key. Like the prime minister he is a self-made man.

He joined the army on a whim as a 17-year-old and rose rapidly through the ranks, serving two years in the elite SAS, serving with United Nations monitors in Lebanon, commanding a truce monitoring group in Bougainville and jointly commanding New Zealand’s forces in East Timor, before becoming head of the army and then the Defence Force.

And the NZ Herald:

His appointment makes a refreshing change. Nobody needs to be a lawyer to act on constitutional advice and after three judges in succession, he will bring a different set of life experiences to the role.

It will be particularly encouraging for the armed forces to see one of their own elevated to head of state. It reflects perhaps a revival of public interest in the services. Their recent missions, notably in East Timor and in Afghanistan, have been cause for pride. The open celebration of Corporal Willie Apiata’s Victoria Cross has given a good impression of the SAS and General Mateparae has agreed to make public a little more information on the special force’s activities in our name. …

He will bring a young family to Government House. That should be refreshing too. He will have five years, possibly more, to make the position his own. He could ensure it is seen and heard more often when it matters, such as in Christchurch these past two weeks. We hope he will.

One of the things I like about the appointment, is the potential role model for youth. You can join the army with no qualifications at 17 and end up as the effective head of state of New Zealand.