Forget the excuses, the memory lapses, the absence of records of correspondence and so on. At the end of the day, the furore over David Cunliffe's contact with controversial Chinese businessman Donghua Liu boils down to one simple question: Can Cunliffe be trusted?

Cunliffe insists he has not lied. But the subdued mood yesterday on the usually noisy Labour benches in Parliament spoke volumes as to what his colleagues really think when it comes to the likely damage their leader has caused to himself and the party - and so very close to an election.

Amid firm rumours that Grant Robertson "has the numbers" to roll Cunliffe, the latter's latest self-inflicted blow to his reputation and credibility may turn out to be the last straw for his caucus colleagues.

The facts are simple. Asked repeatedly at a press conference on Tuesday whether he had ever advocated for Liu in the latter's application for New Zealand residency, Cunliffe issued emphatic denial after emphatic denial.


It subsequently turns out that Cunliffe wrote a letter to the Immigration Service seeking a progress report on Liu's application.

Cunliffe says he has no recollection of writing it. That his office has no record of the letter. And, anyway, that the letter was of a kind that MPs write all the time for constituents.

However, the letter highlights Liu's intention to set up business in New Zealand and export "huge quantities" of agricultural and horticultural products to China.

If that is not advocating for residence to be granted, it strays perilously close to doing so.

In an ideal world, Cunliffe would have tendered his resignation as Labour's leader, at which point his colleagues would have expressed their confidence in him keeping his job and carrying on as normal.

That way Cunliffe would have been seen to have atoned somewhat for being found to have not told the real story about Liu.

The risk would have been that his fellow MPs accepted his resignation. If the polls get even worse for Labour, they may yet demand it.

Cunliffe may yet be saved by a couple of factors.


First, taking over the leadership just three months before the election could turn out to be a very poisoned chalice for Robertson.

Second, Cunliffe was the popular choice for leader of the wider membership and trade unions affiliated to the party.

Robertson knows that removing Cunliffe through a caucus majority alone - as allowed under Labour's emergency rules supposedly catering for the death of a leader close to an election - would destabilise the wider party and destroy what morale remains among Labour's activist base.

That is hardly the scenario a new leader would want to take into an election campaign.

Debate on this article is now closed.