There are two ways to look at Michael Woodhouse's involvement in the National Party's scandal over the patient information privacy breach.
The first is that he used sound judgment as a senior frontbench MP and health spokesman.
He immediately recognised that what former party stalwart Michelle Boag had sent him back in June was information he should not have.
So firm was he of that view that he didn't even open the next three emails she sent which, according to him, had resembled the first email, a spreadsheet containing the names, dates of birth and isolation facilities in which people with Covid-19 had tested positive.
He did not undertake the same actions that cost Hamish Walker his job: he did not forward the information to the media or to anybody. He did not even mention it to another person until Tuesday night last week, after Walker's public confession.
That is when Woodhouse told his leader, Todd Muller.
That is when Woodhouse deleted the emails.
Woodhouse has become a greater focus not only because of the revelations of Friday that he had also been given similar information by Boag but because of how he came to tell the leadership and what they did about it.
The facts are not in dispute as to when he received the material and what he did and did not do subsequent to that.
The other way of looking at Woodhouse's involvement is less generous than his position of righteous non-action.
As health spokesman he, more than any member of the caucus apart from Dr Shane Reti, would have known how wrong it was for Boag to have sent patient names to him.
He could have done something about it then, such as to tell Boag it was wrong, or taking it up with Boag's close friend and deputy leader Nikki Kaye, to talk to her, or with leader Muller.
Had senior parliamentary figures dealt with Boag privately in June, it is unlikely she would have tempted fate by sending similar information to an inexperienced MP.
When Woodhouse saw the first stories about the privacy breach on current cases on Saturday July 4, he immediately linked the information to Boag in his mind, because he says he contacted her to assure her it was not him who had sent the information to the media.
Even after that, he did not mention the potential Boag link to Muller or Kaye for four more days.
He not only allowed Muller to condemn the Government for the privacy breach, Woodhouse himself weighed in with the following: "This is unconscionable and unacceptable that those suffering from the incredibly dangerous virus now have to suffer further with their private details being leaked.
"The Government needs to get to the bottom of this," he said.
After talking to Muller on Tuesday, Woodhouse deleted the Boag emails, knowing that a formal inquiry was under way. A more responsible response would have been to keep them.
Muller is also facing heat over public denials on Thursday that Woodhouse had received patient information from Boag when he had already been told privately by Woodhouse on Tuesday night that he had.
Amy Adams and Kaye have defended Muller's misleading statements by suggesting he meant Woodhouse had not received the identical information to Walker, which is dancing on the head of a pin.
By all accounts the information was patient information of current cases, but simply for a different time period. It was not different in any meaningful way.
Woodhouse was a strong supporter of Simon Bridges during the Muller coup and kept his health job because of his strong performance to date.
But if Parliament were sitting this week, National would have major credibility issues demanding answers from the Government on Covid-19 questions, especially on the health front.
When it resumes on July 21 there will be only three more sitting weeks and nine weeks to the election. He has lost some respect in the health sector through this episode.
Woodhouse is having some down time while the party assesses the damage and tries to get back on track.
Certainly Walker's resignation has not cauterised the wounds to National.
Incidentally, while Boag specialised in dealing with private information, much of the material in the emails, except patient names and dates of birth, was publicly available.
The Ministry of Health in its daily update of current Covid-19 cases gives the travel origins and travel route of each positive case, as well as the hotel or facility the person was in when having tested positive.
For example the latest statement today says the one new case is a woman in her 20s who arrived in New Zealand on July 4 from Rome, via Doha and Sydney and that she had been in managed isolation at the Christchurch Commodore Airport Hotel.
One can only guess what Boag's motives were in sharing the information she had been sent in confidence with Woodhouse and Walker because she has not said.
Presumably she will share that with the official inquiry.
But if she had wanted to help Walker prove the country of origin of New Zealand's positive Covid-19 cases, she could have pointed him to the Ministry of Health press statements.