Otago University Politics Lecturer Bryce Edwards has been producing a daily politics summary for the last two weeks. It must take him hours to do, and is hugely useful to political junkies.

He does a summary of the major issues with his commentary, and then provides links (or pdf copies in the e-mail version) to several dozen stories that have appeared on media on blogsites. They’re helpfully grouped together by topic.

I am already quite addicted to it. While I see most of the stories that Bryce compiles, there are always a few I have not seen. I recommend you check it out every day.

Simon Collins reports in the Herald:

A Maori former solo mother who recommended free contraceptives for beneficiaries is defending her group’s report against charges of Nazi-style racism.

Sharon Wilson-Davis, a solo mother of three by the age of 21, was a member of the Welfare Working Group which proposed radical changes to the welfare system in a report last month.

Former Green MP Sue Bradford said the group seemed to be “looking to Nazi Germany for inspiration, with its underpinning ‘work makes free’ philosophy, attempted eugenic control of a portion of the population, and its potential racist implications for Maori”.

Sue Bradford is just doing hysterical name calling. Her hysteria stands in contrast to the quiet dignity of Mrs Wilson-Davis, whom Sue has effectively called a Nazi. I guess that makes her a Maori Nazi.

The group recommended work-testing almost all beneficiaries, including sole parents with no children under 3, and applying the work test after 14 weeks for parents who have another child after going on welfare. This was the only point on which the eight-member group disagreed.

The group also proposed “free long-acting reversible contraception” for parents who are receiving welfare”. Pharmac has fully funded a long-lasting hormone implant called Jadelle since August.

I’m not convinced on work testing at 14 weeks, but do agree one should not encourage parents already on full-time welfare from having further children. They have the right to do so of course, but there is no “right” to remain on welfare for 20 years when you are capable of working.

Mrs Wilson-Davis, whose Strive Community Trust runs work transition programmes for sole parents in Mangere, said on Tuesday that she supported both proposals to encourage young women to “make wiser choices”.

“Fourteen weeks is the same as paid parental leave. You are going back to work, and if you don’t like it, don’t have another child,” she said.

“What are your choices? We have a contraceptive device that is totally subsidised, so that when you are in better circumstances, if you have work or if you meet a lovely man and he’s willingto support you, fine, have twins, have whatever. But not while you are in this situation.”

The reality is 90% of families do take account their ability to pay their bills, when deciding whether to have further children. It is relatively rare now-a-days for families to have more than three kids.

Mrs Wilson-Davis, 56, was raised by her grandmother in Otara and left school at 14 because she was embarrassed by not having the correct uniform or money for books.

She married her first boyfriend at 16 because “all I wanted was to have my own place”.

When she was 21 her husband left her and their three children. She transferred to the night shift at a factory to pay the mortgage, and asked cousins to stay so they could feed the baby at 3am.

She said many young women had children because they wanted to be loved.

Welfare made people feel useless, she said, but she had seen huge changes in the women who came on her trust’s course for sole parents.

One she cited was Taina Matthews, 49, a former battered wife who is working for the trust and completing a social work degree.

“I think of one woman who was cowering in a corner when she came in. Now she has blossomed.”

So this is whom Sue Bradford is effectively calling a Nazi?

NZPA report:

Labour leader Phil Goff joked that the army should shoot looters stealing goods after the Christchurch earthquake in a radio interview.

On radio station BFM on February 28, Mr Goff talked about meeting a man in Linwood whose sister was killed in the quake, whose house had been badly damaged but then it was ransacked by looters.

“I saw the army out in the street and I thought court martial, firing squads you just can’t believe how low a small minority of people can get,” he told the radio station.

Right wing blogger David Farrar highlighted the comment on twitter.

“Interesting that Phil Goff on radio said that army should shoot looters. Wonder how his caucus feel about his law and order policy?” he wrote.

Mr Goff said it was clear he was joking.

“I was making the point that first of all I had absolute contempt for anybody who would exploit other people’s misery at a time like this but I was making a joke … It was obviously not intended to be taken seriously by anyone other than the most dim-witted National Party blogger.”

Unusual for Phil to get personal, so it must have hit a nerve.

Of course no one thinks Phil Goff was actually advocating that new Zealand bring back the death penalty, and that we abandon trials in favour of court-martials.

What is the real issue, that NZPA avoided, was contrasting what Phil Goff said with what his own MPs have said about Judith Collins far more mild comments.

Grant Robertson blogged:

 I also truly hope Judith Collins regrets her statement made in the wake of looting incidents. She was playing to the crowd of course, and I don’t think was refering directly to Arie, but it was not the calm words of leader in our community.

Now Judith’s statement was that the action of looters was “akin to ‘people who rob the dead'” and that “”I hope they go to jail for a long time – with a cellmate.”

Now while you can certainly argue the “with a cellmate” comment was un-necessary, it pales into comparison with saying they should be shot.

Now personally I think both Judith and Phil have just reacted as human beings to particularly vile behaviour.

But when Labour MPs then start to have a go at the comments, well it is entirely appropriate to point out that Labour’s own leader has made comments far beyond what Judith did. In fact could you imagine the hysteria if it was the Police Minister instead of the Leader of the Opposition who had talked about shooting looters. I imagine Labour MPs would have rushed out a plethora of statements comdemning her.

So the question that remains for me is that Grant Robertson has said that Collins’ statements were not “the calm words of [a] leader in our community. So I can only conclude that Grant also thinks that Goff’s words were not the “calm words of a leader in our community”.

Incidentially Phil Goff went on to say (you can listen below) that the looters should be shackeled to shovels and made to do hard labour for 18 hours a day. He also says he stands by those comments. Now I’ve got no problems with that view point, and I suspect the Sensible Sentencting Trust will back Phil up 100% on his views. But I do wonder about whether his caucus and the wider Labour activists are all that supportive of his “Sheriff Joe” type dialogue.

Phil Goff wants to shoot looters by whaleoil

Andrea Vance in the Dom Post reports:

Up to 65 jobs will go in a merger of agriculture and fisheries ministries and the Government is hinting more departments could be pushed together.

Workers at the Fisheries Ministry and Agriculture and Forestry Ministry were told of the move yesterday.

The Public Service Association said staff were told 65 jobs would go. They are likely to be in Wellington headquarters and regions where there are both MAF and Fisheries offices.

State Services Minister Tony Ryall said the merger would reduce “back-office bureaucracy” and save up to $10 million.

Good. Each seperate agency means the cost of a seperate IT system, a seperate HR Department, a seperate payroll system, a seperate CEO.

Speculation is rife that Treasury, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and State Services Commission may merge some functions. There are suggestions Culture and Heritage may join with Internal Affairs, which swallowed up Archives NZ and the National Library last year with the loss of 55 jobs.

I’ve said this before, but I think time is up on SSC.  Its reputation amongst the rest of the public service is not at all good, and many hold the view that it no longer adds value to the state sector.

I think one could combine SSC and DPMC together, and not only have significant cost savings but also improved performance. DPMC generally has an excellent reputation, and is well respected.

The other change which would be beneficial would be to combine all the small social policy ministrues into one Ministry of Social Policy. An MSP would have far more influence on Government decisions than all the small ministries such as Women’s Affairs.

Vernon Small writes:

There is nothing kind about being cruel to a city so battered. I will be glad to be wrong, but there is a growing inevitability Christchurch will not be ready to host the Rugby World Cup games. …

If the final report on AMI stadium, due by March 15, is negative, or public liability insurance is refused, it will make life easier for Mr Key and the rugby tsars. Because at the next level the decisions are more subjective and therefore more politically fraught.

I don’t think it is inevitable Christchurch will not host RWC matches. I think it is all about the stadium. If the stadium can be made ready and safe in time for the RWC, then all the other problems (accomodation etc) are solveable. If the stadium can’t be made ready and safe in time, then that is the one problem you can’t solve.

Audrey Young has done an article in the Herald, which includes this graphic above. You can click on it for a slightly larger version. We learn how similiar the positions of the six parties plus to a degree even Hone is. Here’s the summary:

1. Repeal Labour’s 2004 Act – all 7 parties support
2. Allow Iwi to claim customary title through the courts – 6 parties support. Hone’s stance is court not necessary as Maori already have customary title to 100% of coastline
3. That the proposed test for customary title should be continous use and occupation since 1840 – National and UFNZ support. Maori Party say it should be easier and Hone says there should be no test. Labour, ACT & Greens say leave it to the courts to set the test
4. Allow for negotiated settlements with Iwi, and ratified by Parliament – National, UFNZ, Maori, Greens and Labour all yes but Labour wants a court to ratify. ACT against and Hone says Maori own it all anyway
5. A ban of selling customary title – all seven parties support
6. Guaranteed public access to areas under customary title – all seven parties support
7. Any change to the 12,500 private titles to the foreshore which have been purchased – no change from National, Maori, UFNZ, Laboru & ACT. Greens want private title to also be unable to be sold and guaranteed public access. Hone says it should all be put in Maori title.

I found this very helpful, because it shows that the areas of dispute are not in fact large – primarily just about what the tests should be, and whether the courts should be further involved.

Colin Meads’ Jersey – An iconic New Zealander offers one of his most prized possessions for auction on the Farming Show for the Canterbury earthquake fund. It’s a rarity, the No. 8 All Blacks jersey he wore when Canterbury defeated the All Blacks 11-9 at Lancaster Park in 1957.

Text 5009. Put FS [space] your bid, name and where you’re from.

Meads spoke about it on the Farming Show yesterday: http://www.farmingshow.com/ He played only a few games as No 8 which adds to the value.

Jamie opened bidding at $1,000 and it had got to $2,700 by the end of the show.

I oppose the death penalty. I don’t think the state should be able to legally kill its own citizens (even the scum) and I also don’t like the risk of an innocent person being executed as has happened in the US.

But despite that when I read about some dreg of society raping a five year old, or sticking a two year old in a clothes dryer, that my primal instinct is to wish that person dead. If someone raped someone very close to me, my instincts would be to wonder if I could kill them myself.

I doubt I am unique in having a fairly primal emotional response to those who commit horrific crimes. If you don’t have such a response – well you’re a better person than me.

But we’ve had a good lesson this week on why one should not give into one insitcive desire for harsh and swift justice without due process – ie a trial.

I recall many years ago the death by cancer of a close family friend. During her funeral a burglar tried to rob her place (they see the funeral notice asking for donations to a hospice and conclude there are drugs on the premise they can steal to sell). This is about as scummy as it gets – robbing a mourning family during their mother’s funeral. As it happened one of the sons was a cop, and a couple of his colleagues said they would keep an eye on his place during the funeral. They caught the burglar in the act, and I recall hearing that the burglar had fallen down the steps a couple of times.

I’d be lying if I said that I was greatly upset at the time (this was around 20 years ago incidentially). Robbing a family during their mother’s funeral is a very scummy thing to do.

Likewise as there were reports of looters during the earthquake, a few of them got arrested. And what they did was hugely offensive to most of us. A typical example of a scummy looter was Jed Wilson-Carver.

A number of people commented about how they were disappointed Mr Wilson-Carver had not fallen down any flights of steps. And to be honest on a primal level, that was pretty much my response also.

But then we had another “looter” appear in court, and it looked like indeed he had fallen down many flights of steps. He was Cornelius Arie Smith-Voorkamp. The Herald reports:

A young autistic man who became “the face of looting” in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake is unlikely to lay a complaint over a beating he alleges he received from the arresting officers.

Incidentially I understand he has alleged they were Australian, not NZ, police officers. But that is by the by.

Cornelius Arie Smith-Voorkamp, 25, has a mental disability that compels him to take light fixtures, and he was arrested for stealing two light bulbs and an antique light fitting from a quake-damaged home.

Now let’s be clear about this. He still broke the law, and did wrong. And in the fullness of time will be dealt with by the criminal justice system. He already has spent several days in prison. So this is not to say he is without fault or guilt.

But it seems very clear he was not someone who was in the same category as Mr Wilson-Carver. He wasn’t really a looter, seeking to inflict misery and make illegal monetary gain from the earthquake.

And so this is a good reminder about why we shouldn’t give into our primal instincts. Why punishments should be meted out by a Judge and/or jury after a trial – not by the Police or vigilantes based on what we think are the facts.

I’m still going to silently hope that certain criminals get staked out over an ant burrow and covered in honey, but I don’t want a criminal justice system based on my primal instincts – or anyone else’s.

And as much as the Police must be very tempted to hand out “bush justice” to some of the criminals they deal with, this case is a good example of why that should remain unacceptable.

UPDATE: It is worth noting that the Police are alleged to have assaulted Smith-Voorkamp, but this is disputed, and a formal complaint has not been laid. There are some inconsistencies around the allegations – originally his mother said they were Australian cops, but NZ cops arrested him. regardless my post was not aimed at the Police, it was a reflection on why we should have due process in our criminal system.

Talking of due process though, Whale Oil has a quote from a senior politician calling for looters to get court-martialed and a firing sqaud. Go check it out – you may be surprised with who the politician is.

Just returned from making my third and fourth submission in the last fortnight to the Justice & Electoral Select Committee. As with the previous times, there was good questioning and discussion on the issue. Ths time it was about the name suppression clauses of the Criminal Procedure Bill.

As I was observing other submissions, I reflected it is a pity more people don’t get to see MPs at work like this. Unless the bill is a highly partisan one, they are genuinely engaging with submitters and looking for ways to improve the draft laws, before they are finalised. It’s an important part of our democracry, and one of the parts that works very very well. The absence of an upper house makes their role even more vital.

I hope that someday Parliament will broadcast (even just over the Internet) all public sessions of select committees, as well as the House itself.

Sadly this week we also saw Parliament at its worst. Labour wasted four hours of the House’s time filibustering the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land and Vesting Bill. This is a non controversial bill that is supported by all parties in Parliament and passed its 1st and 2nd readings without dissent.

Now I’m not against the Opposition being able to fillibuster. I blogged in 2009:

I do support the rights of the Opposition to filibuster – within reason. In fact I was the primary staffer who helped National delay the Employment Relations Act by a week in 2000.

But a filbuster is a blunt weapon for an Opposition to use, and if you get it wrong, it can hurt you.

I tend to think an Opposition should do a full filibuster only once per parliamentary term – it should be used against the piece of legislation that you think is most harmful to the country.

This was the test National used in 2000 with the then ERB. It gave all sorts of special favours to unions, and National decided it was the law they were most against.

Now some will say why filibuster at all? Well an Opposition can not defeat a law, so all they can do when it is a really really bad law, is delay it to show how bad they think it is.

But here Labour is filibustering a totally non-controversial bill. They wasted the entire four to four and a half hours allocated to local and private members bills on talking about how they like to go to the park.

Why? Well their real target is the next bill on the order paper – the VSM bill.

It is interesting that Labour have decided that the VSM bill is so bad, thet they are going to try and oppose it with ore vigour than any other issue before Parliament – even more so than tax cuts, privatisation etc.

Why are Labour willing to risk a public backlash with their fillbuster, in the hope they can stop VSM (voluntary membership of student associations) occuring? Someone on Twitter provided the best answer – because there are no limits to what a parent will do to protect their young!

Compulsory membership student associations have been a major source of training and employment for future Labour Party MPs. So there are no big issues of principle involved.

What is even rarer is that Labour is willing to fillibuster private members day. Only one in six sitting days is given over to private member bills. And the vast majority of those sitting in line are from Labour or the Greens. They’re willing to stop all of those being debate, so long as they can delay VSM.

Of course they will fail. Even with fillibusters the VSM bill should pass into law in April or May. And the Government could always adopt it, and pass it as a Government measure. There is no way it won’t pass before the election.

Ironically the longer they delay it, the less time universities will have time to prepare their enrolment software.

It will be interesting to see how many weeks or months of fillibustering will Labour inflict on private members day, in their fight against VSM. It would be good to see on TV some of the inane filibustering speeches that were made yesterday on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land and Vesting Bill.

The Herald ran a story yesterday headlined “Your $43m lifeline to TV3 owner: and said:

The Government has thrown a lifeline to ailing private media company MediaWorks, which owns TV3, Four, and about half New Zealand’s commercial radio stations.

MediaWorks’ latest accounts show it has essentially received a $43.3 million loan from the Crown to enable it to renew its radio broadcasting licences for the next 20 years.

This got copied all over the place with people aghast that the Government had lent MediaWorks $43m in some secret deal.

However there was no loan and no secret.

In October 2009 (18 months ago) the Government announced:

“The Government recognises that some licensees may have difficulty paying the one-off lump-sum renewal payments for their 20 year spectrum licenses next year.”

Cabinet has agreed to offer an alternative payment option to the radio broadcasters, provided any change is revenue-neutral to the Crown. 

This will allow a series of not more than five annual payments incorporating interest at 9.5 percent, plus inflation. 

So in reality it is a simple deferred payment option – broadcasters had the choice of paying for a 20 year licence in one lump sum, or spreading it over five years at a higher cost. This is no different to what often happen in the commercial world – you can spread payments out but pay more for them.

It’s not a lifeline, and it is not a loan. It is a liability but that is a different thing. If at balance date I have not paid a bill, I have a liability my creditor but that does not mean they have lent me money.

And finally the taxpayer made money from Mediaworks with the deferred payment. The interest rate is 11.2% and the government 6% on its debt, so the Government makes a net 5.2% from Mediaworks.

Sadly far too many will have just read the original story, and will remain convinced that the Government bailed out Mediaworks with a loan.

UPDATE: I notice the original story was front page and the story the next day clarifying things was very small and obscure.

Stuff reports:

Landlords who have hiked rents in the wake of the Christchurch earthquake have been branded looters by another name by Mayor Bob Parker.

In a stinging attack, Mr Parker said he was appalled by reports that some landlords in the city had boosted rents by up to 150 per cent.

“I think that’s looting by another name. I just think that’s appalling,” he told TVNZ this morning.

It is appalling, but not quite the same as looting. Looting is stealing and theft. Hiking your rent up 150% is exploiting a tragedy.

“Sure, there will be market moves and shifts, but there are clearly cases of people ramping up rents to an unnecessarily high degree. It’s destructive to our community and ultimately it’s destructive to those people who engage in activities of that nature.

“There’s not much we [the council] can do. I think the Government could certainly look at some form of control, but even that can create new distortions, and so the first appeal is just to the people who are doing it. Come on, you’re in our community, This is looting by another name. You can’t put this in a polite way. It shouldn’t be happening. We’re not going to get through this if people take that approach.”

I am not a fan of rent control. But I do have a “market” solution.

Someone should set up a website where you can report landlords who have hiked their rental prices by more than x%.  They have every legal right to do so, but the community has the right to scrutinise what is being done and make sure their friends and neighbours are aware that while 98% of residents are doing what they can to make life easier for those affected by the earthquake, a small minority are trying to exploit the disaster.

It is inevitable that rental prices will increase over time as the supply is reduced. But overnight increases of 150% are very exploitative.

Ian Steward at The Press reports:

An influx of earthquake relief workers has made Christchurch’s disaster a bonanza for the city’s prostitutes.

Manchester St sex worker Candice, 24, said she has been run off her feet servicing search and rescue staff, builders, and even two New South Wales police officers.

“They took pictures with me to show the boys back home. They were in uniform but they took off their orange singlets because they said it ruined the picture.”

Normally I’d be suspicious of claims of Police frequeting prostitutes, but as they are NSW Police I really wouldn’t rule it out!

Candice said she had made an average of $700 a night since returning two nights after the February 22 quake.

On her best night she had made $1400, charging $100 for sex or $120 for 30 minutes of “everything”.

$700 a night is pretty decent money if she is on the street as that probably indicates she keeps what she earns. If she works six nights a week that is $4,200 a week or $200,000 a year.

The Reserve Bank Governor has dropped the official cash rate from 3.0% to 2.5%. Normally OCR movements are 25 basis points only, so a drop of 50 is deemed large.

There are two fiscal costs to the earthquake. One cost is the estimated $15b drop in GDP over the next five years – and the OCR drop is in recognition of this.

The other cost is the actual cost of rebuilding which may be up to $20b. As the construction gets underway, then it will put inflationary pressure on the economy and I suspect we will see interest rates rise rapidly – but not until probably 2012.

Bernard Hickey has a good piece on why the Reserve Bank dropped the OCR, despite inflationary pressures looming.

I tend to think a 0.25% drop would have been adequate, as it sends the signal, but then means a less drastic escalation in future.

However as I have around a $500,000 mortgage which is mainly floating, I at least benefit from the Reserve Bank dropping 0.5% – saves me a couple of thousand dollars.

Go visit http://www.showusyourlongdrop.co.nz/ to see the different long drop designs deployed in Christchurch. Great humour.

A reader writes:

This site is absolutely brilliant.  As parents of four children, this is exactly the kind of information that my wife and I want so that we can make informed choices about where to send our children.  It allows you to compare your school (or any school) to statistically similar schools or to other local schools.

Why can’t we have something like this here?  And apart from protecting their collective backside, what could NZ teachers possibly have against this information?

http://www.myschool.edu.au/

It is a great site. National should pledge to create such a site in its second term.

The Keep it 18 campaign is appearing before the Justice and Electoral Committee at 5.20 pm today in Select Committee Room 2 in Bowen House, to do an oral submission on the Alcohol Reform Bill.

The Presidents (or nominees) of Young Labour, Young Nationals, Young Greens and Act on Campus will appear together to talk to their submission, on why 18 and 19 year olds should be able to continue to buy a bottle of wine or a six pack of beer when they do the shopping.

It is the first time the four youth wings have done a formal joint submission to a select committee. Most or all the youth wings have also done individual submissions on the wider issues in the bill.

Their Facebook page has around 17,500 fans.

What strikes me as pertinent as that the voters of Botany have just elected 25 year old Jami-Lee Ross as the MP for Botany. And it is the fourth time he has been elected to office. He was elected to Manukau City Council at the age of 18, and did a good enough job that he got elected twice more – and then to Parliament.

This law would say that Jami-Lee, as an 18 year old, can not be trusted to buy a bottle of wine in a supermarket. However he can be trusted to sit on a City Council, where he would vote on Council spending, by-laws and policies – including the local alcohol policy for a district.

The Dom-Post:

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.

NZPA report:

New Zealand Prime Minister John Key will face an over from Shane Warne in Sunday’s ‘Fill the Basin for Christchurch’ charity Twenty20 cricket match at the Basin Reserve.

If he scores a run, does he get to win Liz Hurley?

Kate Newton reports in the Dom Post:

Pay day is great but neighbourly love gets short shrift from Wellington’s bright young things.

A Colmar Brunton survey of 500 New Zealand 20-somethings has found pay day and pay rises are the things they love the most – even more than sex.

Really?

What is wrong with young people today 🙂

The TDN editorial is titled “Little’s prospecting fails to find paydirt“.

Labour’s Andrew Little wants to be the next MP for New Plymouth. So in an election year, with Labour desperate to bridge the gap on National, it seems fair to assume that if he says something of import, it has come from the man who would be our representative in the House; who would take forward our hopes, our ambitions and our concerns – should he be elected to do so.

The trouble is that Mr Little, at the moment anyway, wears several other hats: not only is he Labour Party leader and a premier in waiting, he is also head of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union.

Andrew promised he would resign as EPMU National Secretary and Labour Party President to focus on being the candidate for New Plymouth only. One has to wonder when? Many candidates are already campaigning full-time.

And that’s where it gets a little tricky. Because the path to such lofty leadership ambition is predicated on him winning the New Plymouth seat. And he must co-ordinate a campaign while delivering a number of messages in language suitable to the wider party and the national union. Messages that may be lost or, worse still, spurned by the ear of the electorate he hopes to sway.

Sand-mining off Taranaki’s coast is one such subject. It may be the official policy of Mr Little’s Labour Party to support the processing of offshore iron sands at a coal-fired steel mill; it may be the accepted doctrine of a national union and its leader who wants to keep his members in employment and their industries in work.

But it is too early to say whether the people whose votes Mr Little needs on November 26 are supportive of such endeavours when there are clear and valid concerns about the impact of sand mining on the Taranaki coast and its ecosystem.

In fact, it may be that Mr Little, in the act of putting on and adjusting so many hats, has misjudged the measurement and found the headgear slipping over his eyes and skewing his political balance early in what is a crucial year.

This is the difficulty when you were three hats.

Oh how embarassing.

The House just had the second reading of the Marine and Coastal Area Bill (which it passed). Labour gave one of their spots to Hone Harawira so he could rail against it on the grounds it doesn’t give Maori title to the entire foreshore & seabed.

Then they had the vote – and Hone didn’t vote. So the issue on which he effectively left the Maori Party, he failed to vote on.

This has happened before. Gordon Copeland left United Future over the anti-smacking law. And then he forgot to vote on the actual bill and become a political laughing stock.

Hone is finding out the hard way there is more to being an MP than just mouthing off. Sometimes you need to actually do shit such as vote.

I understand at least one member of the press gallery joked this morning how hilarious it would be if Hone did a Copeland and forgot to vote. From reports, the entire gallery almost hit the floor in laughter.