On May 12 in Parliament, Labour's spokesman on immigration matters, Pete Hodgson, asked Richard Worth, the former minister of internal affairs, if he could confirm "that as Minister of Internal Affairs he has met all the requirements of a minister of the Crown as set out under `Conduct, public duty, and personal interests' in part 2 of the Cabinet Manual?"
Dr Worth answered in the affirmative, "Yes, I believe so", and Mr Hodgson's follow-up questions related to the former minister's long-standing interest in matters involving the Indian sub-continent, to the Indian community in this country, and to his private business interests, and whether Dr Worth had been acting as an individual or as a minister of the Crown, even one sitting outside the Cabinet.
In this episode, as with several others of the past weeks, the Opposition had been attempting to show that Dr Worth had been using his official position to advance his private business interests.
That is a serious - and unproven - charge, sufficiently based on circumstantial grounds as to nevertheless lead to him being reprimanded by the Prime Minister in April for assuming a public role (as a minister of the Crown) during a private business visit to India.
If this had been an isolated affair it is likely it would have died away in a few days or weeks, as such matters generally do.
But Dr Worth seems to have been especially accident-prone, to put it charitably.
There was, for example, the matter of whether or not he intervened as a minister - with all that that implies - in a case involving an assault on an Indian taxi-driver, allegedly by a group including the son of an acquaintance of Dr Worth.
In Parliament, Labour accused him of a conflict of interest, since he had no related ministerial or electorate responsibilities.
Yet Dr Worth then held portfolios which included that of associate minister of justice.
What was he doing? Mr Hodgson asked - to which, in some minds, there has been no conclusive or convincing answer.
It seems quite clear that Dr Worth has lacked the judgement expected of a minister, yet his background suggests his political experience should not be quite so limited, since he has been a member of Parliament since 1999, firstly as MP for Epsom, then a list member from 2005.
Furthermore, his earlier career as a senior lawyer involved specialising in public law, government process and regulation.
He is now the subject of a police inquiry into what has been described as a "serious allegation", the nature of which has not been disclosed, although yesterday Mr Key confirmed that he had previously looked into claims against Dr Worth of inappropriate behaviour towards women, and that the latest allegations were of a similar nature.
All Dr Worth has said is that he had resigned "for personal reasons".
Of wider significance is the damage and potential damage to the Government of the cumulative effect of Dr Worth's actions and alleged actions.
Mr Key's unprecedentedly emphatic comment yesterday - "All I can tell you is his conduct does not befit a minister and I will not have him in my Cabinet. If he hadn't resigned I would have sacked him" - implies activity of a grave nature indeed.
Furthermore, Mr Key has also said he thinks Dr Worth's two-week leave of absence would give him time "to reflect on his future and whether he intends to stay as an MP".
Clearly, Dr Worth has no future as a member of the National Party caucus.
The Prime Minister was at some pains to state that his former appointee's resignation had nothing to do with Dr Worth's previous judgement lapses, and he will, doubtless, with the benefit of hindsight, now be regretting he did not sack him then, rather than now be faced with what may turn out to be weeks of politically damaging scandal.
Mr Key's disclosure of a previous investigation into claims Dr Worth had been making a nuisance of himself with women was accompanied by the rider that he had been satisfied with the answers he received over those allegations.
But that he also waited nearly a week after first learning of the latest allegation against Dr Worth, and then in explanation delivered a damning indictment of his former minister, might provide grounds for reinforcing a long-suspected lack of assertiveness in the Prime Minister's political judgement.
Such a view can hardly be sustained in this case because, unlike his predecessor, Mr Key has given Dr Worth no way back; indeed, so forceful were his remarks yesterday - bearing in mind Dr Worth has not even been charged - that other members of the National caucus must be in no doubt of their future should they fall foul of the rules and conventions, be they formal or unspoken, of the behaviour expected of them.
The Government may be able to ride out this problem with limited damage because Dr Worth was a list member; there will be no need of another disastrous by-election a la Mt Albert.
For that, and that alone, Mr Key can be thankful.
