As we enter spring at long last, incumbent governments appear to have acquired some new growth on both sides of the Tasman. So, how might this affect the current interplay of government and opposition here? The Opposition appears to think that the government alone is encumbered by the problem of stale Cabinet and caucus members, which is vanity on their part. However, there is little doubt that the Opposition has its own blue deadwood caucus problems. Can anyone seriously see Bob Clarkson occupying a position of responsibility, even if he does survive the next general election, for instance? And is the Opposition really serious about appointing Richard Worth as speaker if they win the next election? Why is John Carter still there? In the case of the Opposition though, the government signalled one possible line of attack when Prime Minister Helen Clark was interviewed on TVNZ's Agenda last Sunday. She raised questions about social services and whether the Opposition could introduce tax cuts without slashing government health, education, housing and welfare expenditure. The Opposition appears to be furiously tacking to the left on virtually every social policy issue, except one. Welfare policy is that issue. Through sheer inertia, the Opposition is seriously exposed over unanswered questions about whether or not it will go into the next election with an unreconstructed hardcore New Right welfare policy. Granted, Key has ruled out time-limited unemployment benefits. However, it has not ruled out slashing sickness and invalid's benefits, and Judith Collins has not provided any policy rationale for doing so. As someone who works in the mental health field, I can testify that the Opposition scandalously had no mental health policy until weeks before the last general election. Same old Nats, weak and vulnerable first... And does the National Party plan even more radical initiatives if it wins the next election? I'm talking about the failed US-Australian 'faith-based initiatives' programmes of the Howard and Bush administrations over the last decade. Put simply, it's welfare privatisation. Central government benefit allocation is transferred to nongovernmental organisations, predominantly religious. Now, this is all very well in the case of mainline church social service agencies. I work alongside these people and they are staffed by professional and caring people, who are nevertheless stretched considerably trying to deal with the ravages that the benefit cuts of the nineties unleashed. And there's no guarantee that these worthy interests would be the ones to secure government service contracts. In the United States, fundamentalist groups have had taxpayers money thrown at them just to preach at drug addicts. And why is the Opposition talking about charity deregulation? Would it sufficiently fund the Human Rights Commission to properly enforce anti-discrimination provisions in such a context? If not, what would happen to low-income and mentally ill lesbians, gay men, transgendered folk, takatapui and whakawahine? However, consider this too. According to Nicky Hager, even her own Deputy of the Opposition thinks that Collins is 'overpromoted and underqualified' for this position. If I were the government, I'd remember that. If I were the Opposition, I would reflect that dead wood grows on both slopes of Parliament. Craig Young - 18th September 2007