by Andrew Geddis

We all have our breaking points. Metiria Turei just reached hers.

Metiria Turei always acknowledged her decision to put a human face on the issue of poverty by revealing that she lied about her welfare entitlements some twenty-four years ago was a high-risk strategy.

Metiria Turei's admission about past rule breaking looks to have cost her a ministerial position, even if the Greens are part of Government after September. That's a pretty heavy penalty for being overly silly some twenty-four years ago.

While I can’t go so far as to claim Metiria Turei as a full friend, she certainly is someone that I’m friendly with. I’ve been to a party at her home, through my wife’s work with a local sustainable energy trust. I’m certainly on happy-smiles-and-stop-to-chat-on-the-street terms.

So a friendly acquaintance, if you will.

There are still reasons for caution about Jacinda Ardern's rise to the Labour leadership. The fact she may one day have children is not one of them - and Mark Richardson doesn't understand how anti-discrimination law works.

There are, I think, legitimate reasons to sound some notes of caution about Jacinda Ardern's rise to the leadership of Labour. She undeniably has much promise in that role and her performance in the first 24 hours has been stellar. But still ... I am not yet fully converted (because I've been hurt so many times before).

You probably want to read about Andrew Little and Jacinda Ardern. But I want to talk about what our recently very busy Court of Appeal has been up to.

I'm aware that all anyone probably cares about today is Andrew Little's decision (helped, no doubt, by some pointed advice from colleagues) to step down as Labour Party leader, to be replaced by Jacinda Ardern.

Winston Peters says his price for government is two binding referendums. If we believe him, which we probably shouldn't, then let's note some more problems with his proposal. 

I've already penned something for RNZ's website (which I then fleshed out a bit more over on The Spinoff) as

Sir Geoffrey Palmer fears that the Government's response to a Supreme Court ruling may be "deeply offensive to the rule of law and a constitutional outrage." At the risk of challenging a legal Goliath, I must demur. 

Regular readers of my Pundit columns (all eight of you) will be aware that I am on occasion partial to uttering the odd cry of "won't someone please think of the Constitution!" Exhibit A.

Did Labour set up an overseas intern scheme in order to evade the limit on political party election expenses? No ... no it did not.

Earlier this year I bought the book Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign for my Dad. Here's how one reviewer opens his account of that account:

The story of Aaron Gilmore ... sorry, Todd Barclay's ... behaviour towards his electorate staff has just got a lot more interesting, as new details about the efforts to cover it up emerge. Might the Police have reason to again become interested in it?

Newsroom's truly exceptional piece of investigative journalism into the saga of National's Clutha-Southland MP Todd Barclay, his ex-electorate agent Glenys Dickson, allegations of illegal secret recordings and revelations of a secret taxpayer-funded payout is well worth

It's a quirky part of our lawmaking processes that important legislative developments may depend upon the right token getting pulled out of a biscuit tin. Today it was the turn of Euthanasia/Aid in Dying and Medicinal Marijuana to come out.

I commence with a quick civics lesson, for anyone who needs it.

The Court of Appeal has upheld Arthur Taylor's challenge to the ban on prisoner voting under the NZ Bill of Rights Act ... except that he personally shouldn't have been able to bring the case in the first place, and he still won't be able to vote. But still - exciting!

I've been writing on the issue of prisoner voting generally, and jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor's various challenges to the 2010 law preventing it in particular, for quite some time now.