The Labour Party Opposition and its leader are enjoying low
support, as measured by opinion polls, and seem unable to
gain any political "traction" on any issue for long.
Mr Goff is a pleasant enough chap, not notably charismatic,
and cut largely from the same dogged cloth as his predecessor
but with stronger links to Labour's working-class origins.
The parliamentary team he leads is shy on obvious talent and
too obsessed with points-scoring to obtain the lasting
interest of most voters.
Recent activity in the House during question time by leading
members of the Labour Party has been petty almost beyond
belief.
If its members are still shell-shocked by being kicked out of
office after nine years of enjoying its full fruits, then it
is time - to use the vernacular - they "got a grip".
Voter support will return to Labour, but it will have to be
earned.
One reason delaying its return is the question of trust.
There were sufficient numbers of dodgy practices by Labour
when in government to help speed the party's exit from power;
any attempted repetition of that behaviour so early in its
term of Opposition should be a dominating concern of Mr Goff
and his colleagues.
In this regard, the sorry spectacle this week of former
minister Rick Barker admitting his role in a recent deception
should see his removal to the very end of Labour's list when
the time comes, joined there by Labour's whip, Darren Hughes.
Mr Barker, who earned few plaudits after being elevated to
the Clark government's executive, was discovered to have
managed the running of a private telephone opinion poll for
the party on October 14 by instructing volunteer staff to use
false names and claim they were calling from a company that
no longer exists.
They were reportedly not to disclose they were working for
the Labour Party.
When initially questioned by reporters, Mr Barker replied
that he did not know what they were talking about.
He later agreed to journalists that he had encouraged the use
of false names by callers, to make them feel more comfortable
"cold-calling".
It might be thought that such behaviour is dishonest or at
the very least deceptive, but not according to the man
responsible for parliamentary party discipline, Mr Hughes.
He defended the use of false names, for callers to not
identify that they were representing the Labour Party, and
for the use of a long-defunct company name "Data Research" to
give the impression to recipients of calls that a scientific
result was being sought.
At least Mr Goff thought the method of polling was a mistake
and has assured that it will not happen again.
But this also appears to be another example of Labour's
misuse of parliamentary funds, something for which the Clark
government earned a large degree of notoriety.
Mr Barker's poll was carried out from his parliamentary
offices using funds legitimately allocated to Mr Goff for
policy polling which is usually conducted by professional
polling companies.
Mr Barker's polling was for partisan party purposes.
Mr Barker, giving the impression on Tuesday of being roasted
slowly over the barbecue of undeniable fact, said his
intention was "never to deceive", arguing that if those
making the calls had said they were from Labour, people might
not have answered honestly.
Labour's tactic when adverse reports are aired has been to
keep Mr Goff well out of sight and this has been the case
with Mr Barker's economy with the notion of integrity - as it
has been when some other senior members, including Trevor
Mallard and Chris Carter, have needed their leader's public
guidance on their behaviour.
It is hardly good enough for a party hoping to rebuild the
confidence of voters in it, let alone acquire the trust
required to be elected to government.
Unsurprisingly, the Market Research Society and the
Association of Market Research Organisations have expressed
their concern for what they describe as "the unethical and
misleading activities of the New Zealand Labour Party" and
are demanding an apology from Mr Barker.
Parliament itself should seek a similar response, since Mr
Barker is also assistant Speaker, and that high office does
not sit well with practices that are unethical, misleading,
untrustworthy and false.
