When it comes to politics what you see isn't always what you get. Sometimes it’s the things that aren't said that speak the loudest volumes.

Of late there have been a couple of examples of this, some more significant than others.

As a start last week Parliament's Speaker, David Carter, announced that the front of the Parliamentary precinct was to be smoke free. No more fagging on the forecourt for the smokers. A move, which on the face of it, looked like a proactive stance to protect public health.

However the ban doesn't extend to around the back. Was it a sop to smokers in the building, to allow them a place to indulge their habit out of sight? Or was it a decision driven more by the rules governing MPs and their proxy votes in the House. You see for a MPs vote to count they have to be on official Parliamentary business, or within the precinct. Having a smoke outside the precinct would see an MP lose the right to have their vote cast were they lighting up when a vote was being taken.

This, I've been told, was a factor in the decision the Speaker reached.

On a more substantive issue the more politically aware of you will have noticed the Labour Party has been attacking the Government on its immigration policies a lot in recent weeks, particularly on the issue of unskilled foreign workers taking up jobs that could be filled by Kiwis.

Labour's recent vociferous approach on this is interesting because when we obtained ministry papers back in April highlighting this very issue, the Labour Party didn't want to talk about it. In fact its immigration spokesperson Iain Lees-Galloway declined to do so, and it appeared to be part of a deliberate media strategy.

What could have possibly seen Labour take a hush-hush approach on an immigration and employment issue? Well at that very time Leader Andrew Little had ended up at the centre of media attention, and was under fire, for being critical of the number of foreign chefs and hospitality workers getting visas to work in New Zealand hotels and restaurants. The political debate then focused on race, and after the controversy around the Chinese home buyers in Auckland issue, Labour quickly ducked its head below the parapets and decided not to engage.

Now to a certain extent that's politics. When you're getting a kicking on an issue there's tactical sense in beating a retreat. But if you aspire to be a Government, and there are facts to back your case, surely it makes sense to stand your ground rather than beat a retreat when things get tough.

But I guess, in these days of poll driven politics that's too much to expect.