David Cunliffe has an unfortunate manner on the moral high ground. He adopts a tone of solemn, heavy-hearted condemnation befitting a preacher in hell. He ought to adopt the same tone when he apologises for a false denial of a dealing with wealthy business immigrant and political donor Donghua Liu. On Tuesday Mr Cunliffe baldly denied advocating for Mr Liu in the latter's residency application under the previous Labour Government. Yesterday the Herald disclosed that in 2003 Mr Cunliffe wrote a letter pressing immigration officials for a decision on Mr Liu's application.
If we give the Labour leader a benefit he seldom gives others, we can make a distinction between "advocating" and pressing for a decision.
He did not expressly endorse the application, though he did mention that Mr Liu hoped to set up a business exporting agricultural and horticultural products to China. If that was not "advocacy", what is?
But mainly Mr Cunliffe had wanted to know when Mr Liu could expect a decision, much as former National minister Maurice Williamson was not trying to influence the police on his behalf when Mr Williamson contacted a district commander about a domestic assault investigation. He said he just wanted to ensure the police were on solid ground.
Mr Williamson had to resign from the ministry, with Mr Cunliffe of course pronouncing darkly on his misdeeds. Mr Cunliffe is not about to demand a similar sacrifice of himself. He makes a distinction between interfering in a police investigation and writing to immigration officials, as MPs seem to do all the time.