But there's no way Ms Sepuloni could remain as social development spokeswoman while the charges are active.
Strangely, her strongest supporters, not to mention a few disinterested parties, are doing her a disservice, by framing the move as a punishment.
It's clearly not and Mr Little has said she would retain her front bench slot and be reinstated as social development spokeswoman whatever the outcome of her mother's court case.
Presumably those unhappy with Mr Little's decision are unfamiliar with the twin concepts of conflict of interest and potential appearance of conflict of interest.
How on earth could Ms Sepuloni be left in a position to comment on welfare matters when she has a family member facing benefit fraud charges?
Links to the Sabin affair are off the mark as well. Anyone can see the difference in situations.
Maybe, as has been suggested, that was in the back of Andrew Little's mind this week, but either way he made the right call.