By Patrick Gower
It is high time that Labour hardened up - and rejected John Key's attempt to ram through changes so police can spy on criminals.
Key is desperately trying to get the numbers to pass an urgent law change fixing up a Supreme Court ruling in the Urewera case that has police fearing their video evidence is illegal.
And Key says without the urgent law change, "criminals will walk free".
That's high stakes stuff - nobody wants that.
But it is essentially blackmail.
Key's message is this: If Labour don't support the change, then Labour is pro-criminal.
Key is saying: If Labour doesn't come to the table, it is the party of gangs. If Labour doesn't help us, it is the party for organised crime. And so on.
Phil Goff is boxed in and he knows it.
It’s political chess and Key is once again putting Phil Goff's future in check. John Key is owning Phil Goff's future.
Goff doesn't want to look soft on crime before the election, so will put up a little fight, and there'll probably be some symbolic "select committee" or something.
But if it comes down to it Labour will support the legislation because Goff doesn't want to look like he’s "gone soft" on crime.
There is no way Goff wants to stand up in a leaders’ debate trying to argue why he's keeping police cameras switched off.
The public at large just don't want to bother with the minutiae of political process and civil rights, important as they may be.
Goff's instincts are likely to just support the change and get it over and done with. That's what National wants.
I say Labour should "get hard", and stand up for themselves for once. Many in Labour's caucus will be saying the same.
Once again this story will expose divisions in Labour's caucus, between Phil Goff's conservative crew and others on the liberal left of the spectrum.
Goff needs to take a look in the mirror and say slowly to himself: I am not going to cave into the petty politics of John Key on this one.
Phil Goff needs to own his own future.
Why be predictable and buckle to Key? Why don't Goff and Labour's MPs stand up for their principles?
Principles like this: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”
That's a right of every New Zealander under the Bill of Rights.
And that's why, when we deal with search laws, we don't do it on the hoof.
It’s also the reason National doesn't have the numbers right now.
It may be arcane, but this is about intrusion by the state, it is about the police interfering in people's private lives.
Lawmakers have known for ages that our search laws are a dog's breakfast.
They have failed to fix them.
The Search and Surveillance bill is meant to do the job but that's been mired in controversy - essentially the Government put it on the back-burner on the way to the too hard-basket.
So no surprise the courts have kicked up over search laws.
Suddenly we need a rush-job.
And when Key says "urgent", he means under urgency. That means ramming it through Parliament before the election with little or no debate, and absolutely no input from the public.
The Maori Party don't want a bar of this.
ACT is a party based on "personal freedom" and two of its key MPs have told me they don't really want a bar of this either.
ACT are in a bit of disarray right now and just stared National down over the right to silence so are obviously in no mood to be trifled with when it comes to civil rights.
Their MPs do actually have principles.
I've just had a read of "Hamed v the Queen" and I can't help but think the police and the National government are overreacting here.
For starters, the video evidence hasn't been deemed illegal against all of the defendants.
It is still allowed against Tame Iti and three others because of the seriousness of their alleged offending.
That means in other cases, judges could still allow video evidence.
Key says this could affect up to 40 pending trials and more than 50 current police operations.
Police have apparently switched off their cameras in those 50 operations.
For starters I am surprised that police are using cameras, right now, in 50 operations.
And if it is to be affected by the Urewera ruling, that means there are 50 operations right now where police have been on private property without the owner's permission, filming people without their permission.
I've looked around. I can't find an example of a single case where police have used video surveillance to make a case. If you can find an example, let me know.
Don't get me wrong here: I'm a hardarse when it comes to criminals and I want the police to have all the powers they need.
But I don't think we should give police powers on the hoof because an election is coming up and it looks good.
Maybe ACT will come to the party if leader John Boscawen wilts. That could get Labour out of a hole.
If not the pressure is all on them to support Key's law change.
I don't think the need here is as desperate as Key makes out. There are bigger principles at stake.
Maybe Labour will harden up and hold out on Key on this law change.
But this is politics. So they probably won't.