From an Opposition party's viewpoint, National asked Jacinda Ardern the cleverest of questions in the House today - because she had no choice but not to answer.
National leader Simon Bridges asked repeatedly if she had confidence that Deputy Prime Minister Winston has acted within the law at all times.
To answer No would have been unthinkable.
To answer Yes would have been untruthful when she has no way of knowing.
• NZ First donation saga: Jacinda Ardern under pressure to order investigation
• Premium - Derek Cheng: NZ First donations and the danger of history repeating
• NZ First Foundation: Party officials, MPs kept in the dark about funds
• NZ First Leader Winston Peters insists party in the clear over electoral donation claims
So instead of answering the questions, Ardern did in the House what she had done with reporters on her way into the House – answer a question she was not asked. She vowed and declared it would not be proper for one political party, Labour, to inquire into the practices of another, New Zealand First.
She was leaving that to the independent agencies. If in doubt, deflect.
Ardern could have told Parliament that New Zealand First leader and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters had given her private assurance that he believed his party's donations vehicle, the NZ First Foundation, has acted entirely lawfully – as he has done publicly.
But if the Electoral Commission decides there are enough unsatisfactory answers from the Foundation to refer the matter to the police, such assurances would not only be worthless, they would be used as a political weapon against Coalition unity.
It would become an issue not just about donations but whether Ardern could trust Peters.
She did get her own hits against National however, being one of several Government members to remind National that they themselves are being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office following a complaint by ex-National MP Jami-Lee Ross to police.
The National Party had an uphill job however, not so much against the Government as against Speaker Trevor Mallard who seemed in a particularly sensitive mood.
Mallard has likened National MPs to jungle animals in the past. Today the insult was Australian.
Bridges grimaced after Mallard made him withdraw and apologise for an interjection and Mallard said that Bridges' facial expressions reminded him of Michael Cheika – "and it's just inappropriate for Parliament".
It is not clear what was motivating Mallard because he has developed a low tolerance of Bridges on most days.
But the politician in Mallard may have had a sense of dread.
Mallard was a pivotal background player in the 2008 donations scandal involving New Zealand First and an undeclared $100,000 donation from businessman Owen Glenn.
He knows more than most how tortuous and damaging such sagas become once they take grip.
Mallard was with Helen Clark in Auckland the day in February 2008 that Owen Glenn – Labour's biggest donor at the time – privately told her that he had donated $100,000 to New Zealand First after Peters had asked him for it.
A week later, Peters held up his "No" sign at a press conference when asked about a donation from Glenn.
It took five months for Peters to acknowledge the donation, saying he had only found out about it that day from his lawyer, Brian Henry, who also runs the New Zealand First Foundation.