Kiwiblog

Neither Phil Goff nor Annette King turned up the valedictory address of retiring Labour MP Mita Ririnui yesterday. It is very rare for the party leadership to not turn up for an MPs valedictory, but the reason in this case may be what Mita Ririnui said on Te Karere on Tuesday.

I’ve observed that MPs often say things on the Maori press, which they don’t say elsewhere. And what Mita said is a pearler. The translation of the item:

Labour MP Mita Ririnui has come out against Goff saying that he doesn’t relate to Maori and that his time as leader is up.

There are seven Maori caucus members and Ririnui says they all want Goff out.

“Of all the names put forward, Shane Jones is our choice.”

“I don’t know of anyone who disagrees.”

Ririnui is adamant Goff does not relate to Maori and Labour needs the Maori vote to govern again.

“The Maori caucus is concerned as we will be the casualties.

“If Shane Jones won’t be leader we’re in trouble.”

Hard to convince voters to vote for Labour when a retiring Labour MPs talks of the total lack of support for the person being put up as the alternate Prime Minister.

Just seven days left to roll Phil Goff, as Whale points out.

Very funny. Radio Waatea reports:

Meanwhile, Labour Party leader Phil Goff says it’s time for a younger man to represent Tamaki Makaurau.

On the weekend Mr Goff launched Shane Jones’ campaign to take the Auckland-based Maori electorate from Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples.

He says voters are ready for someone fresh.

Yes voters are. Radio Waatea goes on to report:

I think it’s’ time for a younger man and a younger generation to come forward and I think Shane Jones is that man,”

Shane would agree, and not just for Tamaki Makarau

says Mr Goff, who was first elected to parliament 30 years ago.

Can you recall what you were doing in 1981? I was in Form 3/Year 9 and was a member of the stamp collecting club. Phil Goff was a Member of Parliament.

And if you can recall 1981, how about 1969? I don’t recall 1969 as I was two years old. However that was the year Phil Goff joined the Labour Party.

First of all Phil Goff attacks John Key for not speaking te reo at the World Cup Opening Ceremony. For fucks sake, how politically correct can you get. I loved the ceremony and thought it was stunning and made me proud to be a Kiwi. But I think it is fair to say the Maori culture was not under-represented in the ceremony, so really why get obsessed over such tokenism over whether or not John Key said kia ora.

But I think Goff has managed to get even more stupid, with his claim that whomever was the Minister for bad manners has committed a sackable offence.

So according to Phil Goff, heckling the Australian rugby team is a sackable offence. Let’s contrast that to the list of what Phil Goff and Labour have said are not sackable offences, helpfully compiled by Whale Oil:

• Watch­ing porn on tax­pay­ers ticket
• Tiling your house with immi­grant labour
• Per­vert­ing the course of jus­tice and corruption
• Tak­ing home a drunk teenager who sub­se­quently runs naked from your house.
• Los­ing your lug­gage three times so you can get a new suit each time
• Tak­ing ille­gal dona­tions and lying about it
• Forg­ing paintings
• Speed­ing through the coun­try­side like an African dictator
• Buy­ing a set of golf clubs and a bike on the taxpayer
• For­get­ting you were briefed by the SIS and then lying about it
•  Steal­ing $840,000 from the tax­payer to fund your re-election campaign
• Con­tin­u­ally break­ing elec­toral law
• Claim­ing you had sold the sky­hawks when you had done no such thing
• Hid­ing ACC blowout from PREFU

There are probably many more than this that readers can add to that list.

Goff would do well to reflect that it is sometimes better to not comment on a story. The Minister for Bad Manners story was already getting massive media and blog coverage. He achieved nothing  by sticking in his 2c worth, except to make himself look stupid and hypocritical.

The same goes for the te reo story. How many votes does Goff thing he will win by whining that the PM didn’t speak in Maori. It just reinforces all the negative attributes the public sees in him.

Talking yesterday with a friend, I came up with a great win-win for the Labour Party.

Julia Gillard is close to being rolled by her colleagues in Labor. Her approval ratings have plummeted, and the chances of her making it through to the next Australian election are slim.

So Julia will be looking for a job shortly.

Meanwhile in New Zealand, Labour are looking for a leader.

So why not offer Julia the leadership of the NZ Labour Party? Let Kevin Rudd take his old job back, and Julia take over here. Labour would bounce back to at least the 34% they got in 2008.

Best of all, Julia actually believes in stuff such as education reform and standing up to the teacher unions, so Labour would get some decent policy also.

Everyone knows Goff would have been rolled by now if any of his colleagues were willing to take the leadership on before the election. Well Gillard will be willing to, so now they have no excuse not to act!

3 News reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff says anyone who suggests he’s facing a leadership challenge is flogging a dead horse.

The party’s caucus is meeting for the first time since reports were leaked that Mr Goff offered to step down at a front bench meeting.

Duncan        And you’re suggesting someone in the caucus has leaked?

Labour Leader Phil Goff is refusing to accept his party’s poor popularity saying its bad polling is because people aren’t focused on the issues.

Phil Goff’s excuse for his latest round of poor polling? “People aren’t focused on the issues”. But before Labour hacks engage in another round of “blame the voters”, I think we should ask: whose fault is that?

Not picking on Phil, but this photo from the SST is just too good to resist.

Captions should be funny, not nasty, please.

The Herald do the second part of their profile of Phil Goff, this time focusing more on his political life:

Although he had the backing of Moore and Michael Bassett, Goff’s former electorate chair John Lindley, now an Act supporter, recalled Helen Clark and then Labour president Jim Anderton were both on the panel and supported a different candidate in the field which included Ken Hastings, Norman Kingsbury, George Hawkins and Wayne Mapp, now a National MP.

Interesting that Clark was against Goff, even back then.

Goff, then 28, hadn’t expected to get selected. This was partly because he was fresh out of Labour Youth, during which time he had made several speeches considered “radical” by the hierarchy including on legalisation of marijuana and calls for a capital gains tax. At one of the Party’s conferences he had also called on half of caucus to resign because they’d been there too long.

Lindley recalls the incident.

“Goff said ‘There’s too many old people in the party’. Bob Tizard stood up and said ‘Name one’ and Goff said ‘You, Bob’.”

Here’s an irony. Bob Tizard was 56 or 57 when the young Phil Goff told him he was too old and should leave.Phil Goff today is 58 years old. Is there someone as brave today as Goff was himself 30 years ago?

Things were more difficult in Goff’s employment portfolio. Unemployment soared as Think Big projects were dismantled, wage freezes lifted and state assets sold off. The newest chair of Labour Youth was one Charles Chauvel, now an MP, who stood at conference and told Goff to take some action or resign.

Now that’s ironic.

Goff emerged from opening the Hunter Building at Victoria University in March 1989 to find students lying on the ground all around his car. He walked back to Parliament, trailed the whole way by students chanting “Phil Goff F*** Off” – led by the then Victoria University Students’ Association president Andrew Little.

And that is downright funny.

But to be fair to Andrew, I once helped lead a march in Dunedin where we may have had a similar chant. In fact I recall some parental displeasure at being captured on TV saying the chant through a megaphone

Those days have repeatedly come back to haunt Goff – state asset sales, high unemployment, no exemptions to GST, student loans – the National Party has reams of quotes by Goff about each, all of which are polar opposites to Labour’s stance now.

Questioning about the apparent contradiction is the one point during two lengthy interviews spanning four hours when Goff becomes terse, saying he does not want to get “bogged down in the 80s”.

“I got things wrong, but life is a learning process.”

Goff uses the same reasoning he used when he first entered Parliament to explain why his views were no longer those he held in Youth Labour – that by and large his approach, rather than his belief in social justice had changed.

He is not ashamed of those years, but now believes the two things they got wrong were the state asset sales and the flat tax proposal, which Lange unilaterally pulled the pin on, prompting his fall from the leadership.

Others from that era find it harder to reconcile the two Goffs.

Michael Bassett said Goff was one of the staunchest in arguing against exemptions on GST and a “devoted Rogernome”.

“The irony was that since 1990 when the party got taken over by a bunch of people who believed otherwise, Phil had to do a double flip. That, in my view, has been the source of his biggest problem.

All politicians to some degree modify their beliefs over time, and will sometimes go for pragmatism over belief. But for most politicians I still have a pretty good idea of what they really think. You know deep down Maurice Williamson would love to sell every state asset with a pulse, just as you know deep down Sue Moroney would be happy if we did nationalise the means of production etc.

But Phil Goff is one of the very few MPs where I have to say I really have no idea of what he truly believes in. It is not so much that his views have changed, or not even that they have changed so radically, but that they have swung deeply to the left, then deeply to the right, and then to the centre and now again deeply to the left.

Roskill was a Bible belt electorate and Goff’s support for homosexual law reforms in 1989 had not gone down well. Another factor was his decision to move out to Clevedon – he put in an offer on the property just before the election and was sprung by his opponent, National candidate Gilbert Myles, who was a friend of the real estate agent.

“[National] went round changing his hoardings by crossing out the G in Goff and adding ‘to Clevedon’ so it read ‘Phil off to Clevedon’,” Lindley recalls.

Heh I like it.

It was at this time of uncertainty for Goff that the Act Party went to him, asking him to leave Labour and become their new leader, taking over from Douglas.

Douglas said Goff was “highly intelligent, an extremely hard worker”. He said Goff discussed the proposal with them, but rejected it.

This reflects again my uncertainty about what Goff believes in. To even entertain taking the leadership of ACT in the mid 1990s , and reconcile that with the Phil Goff we have today is almost impossible.

The latest story on the Labour leadership makes it quite clear someone is telling lies.

Now I think most would agree that a blog post from Matthew Hooton on the Labour leadership should not be taken as automatically accurate. Of course neither does it mean it is automatically wrong either.

But Trans-tasman reported on Thursday :

Meanwhile Goff questioned his front bench colleagues last week as to whether he should resign as leader. The questioning took place at a pre-caucus meeting of the front bench group. It followed publication of at least three opinion polls showing Labour slipping heavily in electoral popularity.

Caucus sources says the response to the question was muted, with one senior MP saying

“it’s up to you Phil.” There was no disagreement. The catalyst for a leadership discussion is the realisation if Labour slips further respected list MPs like Kelvin Davis and Stuart Nash may lose their places.

This has greater credibility. It references to a specific meeting on a specific date, involving a specific group of people. It refers to multiple sources and uses a quote from one of the sources, who by definition must be a frontbench MP or a senior Labour staffer.

Then we have today’s Dom Post:

An increasingly angry Labour leader Phil Goff is again facing leadership speculation after conflicting accounts over a meeting with some of his closest and most senior colleagues.

He furiously denied reports in political newsletter Trans-Tasman that he asked his frontbench MPs whether he should quit.

Several frontbench MPs backed Mr Goff, either describing the report as “bollocks” or insisting the discussion never took place. Others refused to comment.

But one senior Labour MP said the conversation did happen. “[Phil] did consult the front bench over whether he should go.”

Now I don’t think anyone really thinks that both Trans-tasman and Tracy Watkins are simply inventing stories and specific quotes.

This leaves two possibilities:

1. Goff did consult the front-bench on whether he should go, and is now lying about it
2. A member of the Labour front-bench has invented this story and fed it to the media in order to destabilise Goff

It goes without saying that neither scenario is particularly good for Goff and Labour.

I suspect the conversation did happen. I don’t judge Goff harshly for lying and denying it, because it is a reality of politics that you have to deny stuff like this, otherwise you are fatally wounded. Goff probably never imagined that one of his front bench colleagues would leak that he asked his senior colleagues if he should quit.

One Labour source has described the polls as “OK Corral” territory for Mr Goff, with a number of well-respected MPs set to lose their seats should Labour’s support drop any further.

But another MP said Mr Goff’s leadership should be safe – even though there were probably the numbers to roll him should any of the contenders put their hands up.No one wanted the leadership because it was such a “a poisoned chalice” this close to the election.

This sounds like at a minimum three different Labour MPs are talking to the media about Goff’s leadership, so I don’t think one can blame all of this on Matthew Hooton. What is interesting is the assertion that if someone stood, they would have the numbers to roll Goff.

Transtasman reported yesterday:

Meanwhile Goff questioned his front bench colleagues last week as to whether he should resign as leader. The questioning took place at a pre-caucus meeting of the front bench group. It followed publication of at least three opinion polls showing Labour slipping heavily in electoral popularity.

Caucus sources says the response to the question was muted, with one senior MP saying

“it’s up to you Phil.” There was no disagreement. The catalyst for a leadership discussion is the realisation if Labour slips further respected list MPs like Kelvin Davis and Stuart Nash may lose their places.

They’re just all waiting for Goff to lose, so they can axe him after the election instead and let him take the blame for the loss.

UPDATE: Stuff reports Goff denies he offered to quit. But of course you have to deny such stuff.

The Herald has a series of 31 photos of Phil Goff. There’s some I really like.

That’s a very cute photo.

How many people in that photo can you name without checking?

An early photo of Phil with his future wife. Technically Phil was breaking the “Half plus seven” rule

The Weekend Herald publishes the first of a two part profile of Phil Goff. It’s a very nice profile, that gets to the man behind the politician. While I disagree with his politics and policies, and think he managed the SIS briefing issue badly, the profile is a useful reminder that Goff is a decent man, who if he was made Prime Minister would strive to do the best he can for the country.

His father Bruce comes across as quite a character also.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

The public service union has weighed in behind spy boss Warren Tucker as Labour leader Phil Goff continues to attack his recollection of secret briefings.

Mr Goff disputes the accuracy of a report signed off by Dr Tucker showing that he briefed the Opposition leader on an investigation into whether Israeli backpackers who fled after the February 22 Christchurch earthquake might be spies.

Public Service Association national secretary Brenda Pilott said using public servants to score political points was “ill-advised”, especially in an election year.

“Public servants are required to keep their politics out of their job and their job out of politics. That means they cannot respond publicly to criticism or become embroiled in political rows.”

I was listening to a Labour MP talk on this issue on the radio yesterday and he was very luke warm in his defence of Goff. Rather than defend Goff, it was more “Wow, what a mystery this is”.

I don’t imagine there is anyone who really wants to say Goff’s memory is more credible than a written file note made at the time four months ago. But Goff continues to insist only he is right and everyone else is wrong.

Idiot/Savant by his own words hates the SIS and hate Whale Oil. So when he concludes the SIS have acted entirely appropriately, it is worth quoting:

There’s a lot of shit going round the blogosphere this morning about the SIS’s release of a document which made Phil Goff look bad to a sewerblogger “in preference” to the media. … But it turns out that its nothing of the sort, and there is a very good reason for the difference in timeframes. From Stuff today:

Mr Slater was given the documents five working days after he made the request. Fairfax Media, who made a similar request, received the document last night along with a letter from Dr Tucker which said: “Your request differs from Mr Slater’s in that you have also requested reports prepared for the prime minister”.

Which seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation.

If you want to see some hysterical rants, check out John Pagani who has blogged six times in a row on the same issue, each time claiming the SIS have committed treason, by obeying the Official Information Act. How desperate can you get to distract people from the substantive issue, that Goff lied.

Matthew Hooton blogs:

I find it difficult to believe he is not lying about the meeting with SIS Director Warren Tucker on Monday 14 March.  If he is not lying then his memory faculties and/or his ability to multitask must be seriously in doubt. …

Mr Goff would have it that these documents are fakes.  Mr Tucker wrote things down, and prepared agendas and minutes, that were untrue. He then gave these false documents to the Prime Minister’s Office and to Whaleoil in order to discredit Mr Goff. 

This is an extraordinary allegation for Mr Goff to be making, even implicitly.  How credible is it that Mr Tucker would behave that way?  My intelligence sources tell me he has always been the ultimate straight-shooter and has done more than any of his predecessors to bring openness and transparency to the intelligence community.  Any personal political views he may have are, I’m told, completely unreadable and, as outlined above, he has maintained the confidence of every New Zealand prime minister from Muldoon, to Lange, to Bolger, to Clark to Key. It is impossible to believe he has now risked his reputation to take a cheap shot at Mr Goff, who he served loyally when he was Foreign Minister, Defence Minister and Trade Minister through the 2000s.

Isn’t it far more likely that Mr Goff, having previously said the matter had not even been mentioned to him at all, has been caught lying and is now forced, Nixon-like, to maintain the lie – even if it requires implicitly attacking Mr Tucker’s integrity to the extent of suggesting he has behaved illegally?

The sad thing for Goff is this is totally self-inflicted. It was of little political consequence whether or not he had been briefed or not. But because Goff was so stupid as to attack the SIS, rather than check with them, he has now been forced into a position when he is seen as dishonest rather than merely forgetful.

Idiot/Savant again notes:

As for the actual issue, Ministers and MPs receive a lot of information, and I would not be surprised at all if they forgot something mentioned in passing. And I’d expect them to be aware of that problem, rather than arrogantly assuming they have total recall of every document which has ever passed their desk

Unless you believe the paranoid conspiracy theory that the SIS has fabricated the briefing notes from March, it is obvious that Goff was briefed, and at a minimum had a quick read of the report.

He was distracted by the Darren Hughes scandal, and it is not a big thing that he doesn’t recall the briefing. but his arrogance is proving his downfall. In a measure of his credibility vs Warren Tucker, he doesn’t come out of it at all well.

Statement from Hon Phil Goff:

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky

SIS-OIA

Embedded above is the OIA response from the SIS. The documents:

1. notes the Investigation into Israeli Nationals in Christchurch was an issue to be discussed with Goff on 14 March
2. says that Goff asked “What do we know?”
3. notes it was “discussed at length”
4. again notes the briefing on 14 March on the agenda for 6 April
5. has a copy of the actual investigation paper dated 8 March
6. notes it was discussed with Goff
7. also notes that Goff read the investigation paper

And look at all that, and then be reminded by Whale that Goff time and time again claimed in different media he had never been briefed – that in fact the first he heard of the Israelis was when the Southland Times ran their story

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

A fresh political row has broken out over Israeli spy allegations after Labour leader Phil Goff accused  SIS head Warren Tucker of misleading the public over what he knew about an investigation into the death of an Israeli citizen in the February 22 Christchurch earthquake.

Goff today disputed a notation by Tucker on a briefing note - released under the Official Information Act - which suggested the opposition leader had seen the briefing of the Israeli “spy” investigation.

Goff disputed the notation and accused Tucker of calling his credibility into question.

“In future, I will only meet with Warren Tucker or representatives of the SIS if there is someone independent in the room to keep a true and accurate record of what is discussed.”

Warren Tucker incidentally was appointed Director of the SIS by Helen Clark in 2006.

The notation he made on the briefing note that Goff has seen the briefing paper would have been made in March, when he met Goff. Back then there would have been no thought that this could become a public issue.

Tucker is a long serving intelligence professional. He would have done hundreds or thousands of briefings, and I doubt would be in the habit of being careless about his notations, or would forget to hand over a paper he had with him.

We now have an Opposition Leader who is so arrogant, and so unable to simply say “I stuffed up” (unlike the Prime Minister) he is now claiming the SIS Director is a liar, and incredibly has said he no longer trusts the SIS and will never meet with them again without witnesses. And this is the man who wants to become their Minister.

This fiasco was entirely avoidable by Goff. When it was first reported that Goff had been briefed, he could have checked quietly with the SIS before shooting his mouth off in public. but once he had publicly stated he had never been briefed and knew nothing of the Israeli issue, he has refused to concede he was wrong, and simply didn’t recall the briefing as he was in the midst of the Hughes scandal.

The public forgive MPs who say they made a mistake. Goff though has dig himself a hole and keeps digging.

Labour List MP Raymond Huo blogs at Red Alert:

One Chinese community leader told me that Labour’s economic package is a “watershed moment” to define the future of New Zealand. Other constituents told me that when encountered with a natural disaster “Key is talking about how to save lives while Goff is going there to save lives”.

I’m amazed the media failed to report this saving of lives.

Strait Times reports:

SEOUL – ALL North Koreans who took part in local elections on Sunday voted for state-selected candidates and turnout was 99.97 per cent, state media said on Tuesday.

A total of 28,116 representatives were elected as deputies to assemblies at provincial, city and county level with not a single vote of opposition to the candidates, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said.

Opposition Leader Phil-Kim Goff said that no one briefed him that the election was being held that day.

In my By the numbers blog at Stuff I look at the Fairfax poll result, and ask what Labour can do to change things in the next 17 weeks.

The answer from their Leader and Deputy Leader seems to be denial. First Annette:

”It’s another poll but it’s not what we are finding on the ground. What people say to us isn’t reflected in the poll.

No, but you obviously are only talking to your own supporters.

And she added: ”I notice that this poll was compared to 1996 when they said we got our worst ever result. Helen Clarkwent on to get to 28.1 per cent and we almost formed the government.”

I wondered who would be first to try this line. In 1996 the total centre-left vote was 54% as the Alliance and NZ First were on 15% or so each. In 2011 the total centre-left vote is around 37% and centre–right vote close to 60%.

And Phil Goff says:

Labour leader Phil Goff has dismissed a dire new poll result for his party, saying it doesn’t reflect support for Labour’s proposed capital gains tax.

That is true. Many people may support a CGT. But they don’t want Phil Goff as Prime Minister is the brutal truth, and if they have to choose, it is an easy choice.

An election based on today’s poll result would see Napier-based Labour MP Stuart Nash lose his list seat in parliament, but Mr Goff said that was not a concern.

“We’re not intending to get a result like that,” he said.

General Custer intended to win the battle also.

Mr Nash, who is also the party’s revenue spokesman, would “absolutely” retain his seat, and also had a chance of winning his Napier seat from National MP Chris Tremain, he said.

“I know he’s got a big majority to pull up but I wouldn’t rule him out to be able to win the electorate off National.”

Oh my God. I think he’s on drugs. Next he’ll claim they may win Helensville and Clutha-Southland.

People will think this is whack Phil Goff day. I’d rather blog on something else, but he keeps digging. His arrogance and refusal to admit black is black is beyond belief. Let us look at the transcript of Goff with Larry Williams:

LARRY WILLIAMS:         All right. Prime Minister, I think, says if it is an act of global terrorism but anyway, let’s go on to other things. The Israelis, the Prime Minister said his understanding from director SIS, Warren Tucker, that you were briefed and it seems that you were.

PHIL GOFF: No, I wasn’t briefed. He said that I’d received the same document that he had received. I saw no document. There were three documents. I have seen none of them. Briefed is not a description that I would give.

He is effectively calling the SIS Director a liar. Just because one may or may not have received written reports, is not the same as denying you have been briefed. An oral briefing is a briefing. Warren Tucker has said he orally briefed Phil Goff, and Goff’s only response is he doesn’t remember it. That does not mean he was not briefed.

Goff said he was unaware of the issue. He was wrong. The SIS Director had at a minimum orally briefed him. What is Phil Goff incapable of acknowledging he was wrong? Does he think it will make voters like him more?

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Tucker’s an honourable guy, isn’t he? Were you given the papers or not?

 PHIL GOFF: No, I wasn’t given the papers and nor – nor will Warren Tucker say that I definitely received those papers. I would have recalled reading the paper had I been given it. I was not given it.

From my recollection of working in both a Prime Minister’s Office and an Opposition Leader’s Office, the SIS don’t tend to leave copies of their papers behind. Generally you are given it to read, and then sign it, and give it back.

But regardless of whether Goff was given a copy of a paper to read, he was orally briefed on the Israelis. He simply forgot or didn’t pay attention.

Bad enough that Phil Goff can not recall being briefed by the SIS, but now he can’t even recall the gender of his own candidates.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Mr Goff denied Labour had used the same tactics to ensure Progressive leader Jim Anderton was elected in Wigram. “We always ran a candidate in Wigram and as I recall he ran quite hard but got thrashed by Jim.”

Labour’s candidate in Wigram in 2008 was Erin Ebborn-Gillespie, whom I am informed is female.

I blogged yesterday how Phil Goff was wrong with his claims he had not been briefed by the SIS on the Israeli backbenchers.

Looking back at the chain of events, I am staggered by the degree of either incompetence or arrogance that Goff has showed. Let’s go back to the Q+A interview with John Key.

GUYON Did you brief Phil Goff?

JOHN  Phil Goff was briefed, yeah, that’s right.  I personally didn’t brief him, but my understanding from the director of SIS, Warren Tucker, is that he was briefed and he was shown the same note and report that I saw.

Now let us imagine you are Phil Goff, and you hear the PM saying that. And also let us be generous and presume that Goff honestly doesn’t recall being told about it by the SIS Director in March.

Wouldn’t your first thought be, on what basis would the PM say you have been briefed. Well John Key actually said the magic words “my understanding from the director”.

So at this stage, your options are:

1. The PM has lied about what the SIS Director said to him
2. The SIS Director has lied to the PM
3. The SIS Director believes he has briefed you

Now wouldn’t anyone with a shred of intelligence, decide to check with the SIS Director before mouthing off in the media how upset he is at the PM and the SIS?

I can’t imagine how his staff didn’t stop Goff from insisting he had not been briefed, without checking with the SIS first. Maybe they tried to, and Goff would not listen.

But he didn’t. In fact he boasted how he had told off the SIS Director by text message. And then the SIS Director came and met Goff, and pointed out he had briefed him in March. And I bet your bottom dollar there is a file note recording this, taken at the time. which is why Goff them acknowledged he had been briefed.

But here is where there is such a key difference between Goff and Key. Key didn’t handle the initial response to the Israeli story that well. And when asked about it, he acknowledged:

So, look, at the end of the day, I mean, I realised by the morning, you know, the impression that I had left wasn’t sustainable.  If I replayed the video and did it all again I’d probably start where I ended six hours later, but it comes with the territory.   Sometimes you don’t get it perfectly right in the first moment.

So Key is willing to acknowledge he could have handled something better. Note that unlike Goff he didn’t actually say anything untrue. He didn’t claim others were wrong, when in fact only his memory was wrong. But still Key is willing to concede he could have handled things better.

While Goff is the absolute opposite. He has been caught out clearly wrong. He said was not aware of the allegations, and he was. He said he was not briefed, and he was. He said the PM was mouthing off without checking the facts, and in fact it was Goff who mouthed off and was wrong.

But will Goff admit in anyway he is wrong or stuffed up? Nope, not one bit. And it is this arrogance which is why Goff is massively unpopular, and the converse is why Key is popular.

Phil Goff claimed this week he was not briefed by the SIS on the Israelis backpackers. He said the PM had lied about it.

Now Goff has admitted, after meeting the SIS Director this morning, that he was briefed in March. He says it must have been insubstantial as he doesn’t recollect it. More likely is he was distracted by the Darren Hughes scandal at the time.

This is incompetence of the highest level. Sure we can all forget things, but forgetting an SIS briefing?? Worse though, Goff could have checked his diary or checked with the SIS. Instead he accused the Prime Minister of lying, and impeached the integrity of the SIS.

Let us look at his words. First Danya Levy in the Dom Post reports:

I was not aware of the allegations.

And then today TVNZ reported:

Goff is furious over the Prime Minister’s entire handling of the affair, including claims yesterday that the Labour leader was kept in the loop.

Goff insists he was not briefed before, during or after the investigation and says he has texted the head of the SIS to complain about John Key’s comments.

And further he said:

He said the prime minister has to understand the responsibilities of his office and cannot “mouth off” without checking his facts first.

This is especially ironic. Goff now stands as the one who mouthed off, can’t even recall an SIS briefing and was too lazy or too incompetent to even check his diary or with the SIS, before he repeated his claims.

Goff incidentally did not just falsely attack the PM, but also attacked the integrity and independence of the SIS. Section 4AA of the NZSIS Act says:

(3) The Director must consult regularly with the Leader of the Opposition for the purpose of keeping him or her informed about matters relating to security.

So Goff effectively accused the Director of breaching his statutory duty. A very serious charge. Again someone with an ounce of competence would double and triple check before claiming he “was not aware of the allegations” and that he was “not briefed before, during or after the investigation”.

Phil Goff was interviewed on Larry Williams yesterday on whether his CGT would effectively also be an estate tax.

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Another thing can you clarify.  If somebody inherits a property and they sell a property, you pay capital gains tax on that based on the original cost of the property?

PHIL GOFF: Yeah if they sell it.  They don’t pay tax on the inheritance.

LARRY WILLIAMS:         So we’ve got an effective estate tax there?

PHIL GOFF: No, no we haven’t.  You – if I inherit my father’s house and I keep my father’s house rented out, I don’t pay capital gains tax…

LARRY WILLIAMS:         But if you sell it you do which is…

PHIL GOFF: If I sell it because it’s an investment property, yes I’ll pay tax on it like I will on any other investment property.  You can’t have it any other way without creating a massive loophole…

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Which is really…

PHIL GOFF: No there is no inheritance tax.  You pay no tax…

LARRY WILLIAMS:         That’s right.

PHIL GOFF: … on a property that you inherit…

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Until you sell it.

PHIL GOFF: … unless you sell it.

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Yeah, until you sell it which makes it in effect an estate tax…

PHIL GOFF: The same way of any other investment property Larry, why would you differentiate?

LARRY WILLIAMS:         No I’m just asking you the question because I spoke to Jo Dylan from Ernst & Young and she said it’s an effective estate tax.

PHIL GOFF: No well she’s wrong.

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Is she?  She’s an expert in taxes, well.

This is an interesting situation. The family home is not subject to CGT, but it is effectively when you die as far as I can tell.

Let’s say you own your own home and your parents own their home. And let’s say when they die their home is worth $300,000 more than what they paid for it say 15 years ago or at V Day.

Now it is highly likely you will not keep your parents home as an investment property. Partly for emotional reasons, it would be bloody difficult renting out to strangers the home your parents lived in, and you associate with them. But also if there is more than one child, the home generally has to be sold to allow the estate to be divided up.

So in the example above, you would end up with a $45,000 tax bill on your parent’s family home.

Unless I have something wrong, then the family home exemption is only while you live, and it will get taxed as part of your estate unless your children decide to turn the family home into an investment property (which I suspect happens very rarely).

In my Stuff By the Numbers blog, I look at Phil Goff’s approval ratings over the last 30 months in the 3 News poll. I also compare the relative approval ratings for Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, John Key and Phil Goff.