When Labour leader Phil Goff named his shadow cabinet in November 2008, it was clear his natural caution influenced his decisions.
He did not promote any of the new entrants in Labour's caucus, relying instead on the experience of ministers who had served in the Clark government.
His rationale may have been that they would be best suited to attack the new government and maintain Labour's poll standings; if so, it was a strategy that failed.
All too many of his front bench had difficulty coming to terms with being in Opposition, and their poor showing has contributed to Labour's languishing in the polls.
As an Opposition, Labour has been ineffective in the face of many opportunities for a vigorous showing.
Mr Goff did make one promise in 2008: he would reshuffle the shadow cabinet before the next election, promoting those who had proven their worth.
In no sense, however, has this week's minor reshuffle fulfilled that commitment, and perhaps it was not intended to.
It did not take long after Mr Goff became leader for the suggestion to take flight that he would be just an "interim" leader; that the so-called "old guard" whom he had retained on the Opposition front bench would be replaced within two years by a new leader and a new, more youthful look in keeping with the party's target voting bloc.
In that sense, the opportunity presented to Mr Goff by the expenses scandal has proved a godsend.
He was able to remove from the spotlight one serious contender for the leadership in Shane Jones, and in dealing with the other major offenders would finally be able to give a public demonstration of the strength of his own leadership.
That New Zealand voters like "strong" leaders cannot be doubted, but Mr Goff has since his elevation had to fight perceptions that he is "weak" - too accommodating to the various tensions that exist within the "rainbow coalition" as some would describe Labour these days.
He was able to show decisiveness in dismissing Mita Ririnui to the back benches, but his determination showed a weakening when it came to dealing with and demoting Chris Carter, an electorate MP with a 5000-vote majority - and an inability to recognise excess.
Mr Goff effectively gave Mr Carter a small smack, sending him to the second row in Parliament and removing further expenses temptation by taking away his favoured foreign affairs spokesmanship and its frequent overseas travel opportunities, and leaving him with conservation - before he had unreservedly apologised for his misdeeds.
But when Mr Carter continued to fail to admit to the error of his ways, his leader sent him home on "stress leave" and, it appears, ordered a public apology.
If Mr Carter gets the message, he likely will return in a state of contrition.
If he does not, he will resign, forcing a by-election - a prospect Mr Goff probably would not welcome.
But the fact that Mr Goff did not grasp the chance to remove his rebellious MP to the backbench along with his colleagues is an indication of hesitancy and an opportunity lost to promote one of the younger talented MPs.
Mr Goff may have decided that such a measure carried too much risk of having at least one resentful and long-standing MP in a position to plot a leadership challenge in favour of a likely contender, such as David Cunliffe.
Mr Carter has cultivated a persona of loyalty to the party and to its leader, but his behaviour during the past week indicates that it is superficial.
A leader with better advice than Mr Goff appears to be getting would have acted more ruthlessly, and perhaps Mr Goff - who evidently does not have a personal chief of staff - should consider hiring a political adviser not inclined to shelter him from unpleasant realities.
Mr Goff has now created in some minds a public martyr, not helped in the slightest by the behaviour of members of the Press Gallery in their televised pursuit of the dissenter; in others he will have convinced of his inability to rule his own caucus, let alone the country - the impression remains of a leader not fully confident of complete support.
The week's promotions of Charles Chauvel and Grant Robertson are appropriate and should add some firepower to a shadow cabinet considerably in need of it.
Mr Goff will, however, have another opportunity to make the necessary large-scale changes if, as he has indicated, a reshuffle takes place later this year.
He must avail himself of it.
