No, foreign affairs (at least he still was last night).
Grant Robertson?
No, finance.
Phil Goff?
No, defence.
All three having been talking trade this week, but no.
Three more guesses.
David Parker?
No, he was it when David Cunliffe was leader.
Clayton Cosgrove?
No, he was it when David Shearer was leader.
Maryan Street?
No, she was it when Phil Goff was leader, and is out of Parliament anyway.
Get the picture?
No wonder Labour's messages have been anything but clear.
It is, in fact, Dunedin MP and former reverend David Clark, and has been since November last year in Andrew Little's first anniversary reshuffle.
But TPP is far too major an issue at present to be handled by Mr Clark.
For the next few months, Mr Little himself and Grant Robertson will be de facto trade spokesmen.
On National's side, too, Steven Joyce is doing the heavy lifting instead of new trade minister Todd McClay.
This past week, without doubt, has been Mr Little's worst week as leader.
It began with uncertainty over Labour's TPP position and ended in disunity.
I wrote last week that this will be the year we see whether Mr Little has papered over the cracks in Labour or if he has plastered over them to make them watertight.
I did not realise we would get the answer so quickly.
It is definitely a paper job so far.
It has hardly been an ideal run-up to his state of the nation speech tomorrow in Albert Park in Auckland.
Labour says the TPP undermines New Zealand's sovereignty.
Mr Goff's interview with me undermines Labour's arguments.
Mr Little has made a huge call in recommending to his caucus that the party should oppose the TPP and oppose the signing next week.
It has been a policy, however, that may have been hard to resist.
It was strongly supported by the unions that elected Mr Little leader, and by the caucus's Left that wanted Mr Robertson to be leader.
It is an issue that pits Mr Little against Mr Key on a trust-me basis when Mr Little has yet to build up his own bank of political capital.
It means his party has ended New Zealand's bipartisan approach to free trade that has effectively operated since the Fourth Labour Government started removing New Zealand tariffs.
Labour has taken a gamble in dispensing the prevailing orthodoxy.
With four of the past six Labour leaders supporting TPP, it makes Mr Little's sales job to the public all the harder.
But he and his advisers must have calculated that Labour will make net gains from its new position.
It is very hard to see how but there are some possibilities.
The campaign against TPP is not just around the signing in Auckland next week; it will run the course of the parliamentary process for the national interest analysis (NIA) and related legislation.
It is clearly not just a campaign against TPP; it is a campaign against National, using TPP as the totem.
The aim of the campaign is not just to highlight the flaws in TPP but to use it as a rallying point throughout the year, to build a movement against the Government and its friends in big business.
By joining the Greens and New Zealand First on TPP, Labour will cement its relationships with prospective coalition partners.
Labour needs to become the natural ally of New Zealand First to regain the government benches.
The campaign will not stop the TPP laws being passed in New Zealand - law changes which will take effect only if and when TPP enters into force in two years.
But if it is not passed in the United States this year, the Left in New Zealand will be able to claim a victory of sorts.
So just how outrageously does the TPP undermine New Zealand's sovereignty? Not much, according to Mr Goff.
All international agreements, including New Zealand's membership of the International Labour Organisation and the World Trade Organisation, place restrictions on members and the ultimate sovereignty, to withdraw membership, is retained.
Trade deals are about liberalisation.
They do not say: "We want freer trade and freer investment but, by the way, we reserve the right for our opponents to reverse that in a couple of years.''
Labour's two main objections are that there is no special provision for it to impose a ban on house sales to foreigners and that overseas companies and Governments will be able to make written submissions on proposed laws or regulations that affect them.
As Mr Goff pointed out this week, it would have been better to have the exception on house sales.
But was it really reckless negligence not to include an exception that has never been part of New Zealand law?
As Mr Goff said, a future Labour government will still be able to stop foreigners from buying houses in New Zealand but it will have to do it with existing law, for example, applying a tax of any amount on foreigners buying houses in New Zealand - 100% should do it.
And, in fact, there is nothing in the TPP that could stop Labour passing any law it wanted - it would have to face the consequences - a possible dispute by a disappointed house buyer.
The concerns Mr Little and Mr Robertson have expressed about the possible influence of outsiders on New Zealand's law or regulation is harder to fathom from Labour.
It is straight out of the Evil Multinationals and United States Bullies chapter of the Alliance manifesto.
It chooses to see New Zealand as a potential victim when it comes to having to consult over laws affecting other parties or allowing submissions to be made rather than, for example, an opportunity for the likes of Fonterra or New Zealand to oppose the protectionist subsidies in the next US Farm Bill.
It is not unusual for a country that is making law changes that affect other countries to consult.
We would expect to be treated so if another country was making laws that impacted on New Zealand.
Being required to consult is not a loss of sovereignty.
Unless Labour can make a better case for its outrage, its gamble to oppose TPP could backfire.
● Audrey Young is political editor of The New Zealand Herald.
