John Armstrong: Election-year unity comes first

Helen Clark's damp-squib Cabinet reshuffle should be seen as final proof of just how much she hates them.

The predictions of a major upheaval never quite gelled with the Prime Minister's track record of shunning radical shake-ups during her decade and more as Labour's leader. She has long believed that such revamps end up annoying more colleagues than they please.

Moreover, with the Government once more ahead in the polls, she would have asked herself a simple question: If it ain't broke, why fix it?

The absence of any pressing reason for change, along with her natural reluctance to shake things up, thus outweighed arguments for change.

So a risk-averse Prime Minister has opted to play it safe and not thrust her senior ministers into new jobs in election year in spite of hints to that effect.

With the exception of Trevor Mallard's education portfolio, the roles of the nine front-bench ministers are largely unaltered.

Notably, the two other big-spending portfolios, social development and health, remain in the hands of Steve Maharey and Annette King respectively, in part because they probably lobbied strongly to keep them.

In Mrs King's case, the Prime Minister has installed Pete Hodgson as an apprentice, making him an Associate Health Minister charged with getting the ballooning health budget under control.

Most voters - presuming they notice at all - will see such tweaking as cosmetic. But the appointment sums up the reshuffle.

With the Prime Minister confirming that Mr Hodgson will take over from Mrs King after the election, this is a "transition" reshuffle concerned with what happens if Labour wins a third term rather than a "big bang" one designed to give the Government a fresh face before polling day.

There were certainly valid reasons for a bigger shake-up beyond the questionable need for the Government to portray a fresher image in election year.

After five years in the same job, some ministers had long passed the point where they risked turning into the compliant mouthpieces of their bureaucracies rather than remaining the servants of voters.

The associated dangers of arrogance and complacency would have been similarly avoided by giving senior ministers new jobs to keep them on their toes.

Some ministers may have wanted fresh challenges, believing they had achieved as much as they were ever going to in their current portfolios.

Last, there was definitely a need to put fresh faces in some portfolios where the incumbent was not performing or had an image tarnished by unpopular decisions.

Such vulnerability has been recognised in education, where Mr Mallard's history of closing schools has him relinquishing responsibility for primary and secondary schooling to the up-and-coming David Benson-Pope.

Likewise, two close shaves with winter electricity shortages have cost Mr Hodgson the energy portfolio.

Yet, much to the Opposition's delight, George Hawkins remains Police Minister despite struggling in that role.

Such loyalty - also displayed by the lack of any rejigging of the rankings of Cabinet ministers - shows the premium the Prime Minister is putting on election-year unity, rather than creating disgruntlement which could corrode Labour's iron self-discipline.

On the latter score, she has enough of a problem on her hands having confirmed that John Tamihere will not get his job back in a hurry.

However, the message to Mr Hawkins and other under-performing ministers is clear. You can keep your jobs for now, but step down quietly after the election. Though there has been no shake-out now, there will have to be then.