When State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes issued the statement setting up his inquiry into Treasury Secretary Gabriel Makhlouf, he issued a forlorn plea: "I ask that people step back and let this process be completed."
Fat chance, and just as well.
The revelation in the Herald on Friday that the GCSB tried to warn the Government about Makhlouf's wrong use of the term "hacking" in reference to the Budget leak puts the matter into a different league.
It does what National has been praying for and that is turn the focus away from Makhlouf and on to Government ministers.
And it certainly demands a closer examination of which ministers knew what and when.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern attempted to bat it away yesterday by suggesting it would be "useful" to let the State Services Commission inquiry do its job and that she was "withholding any judgment" until it had reported.
That response isn't good enough. She is not a bystander in this process; she is a player.
She herself, Finance Minister Grant Robertson and GCSB Minister Andrew Little at the very least were involved in briefings on Tuesday, May 28.
We need to be sure of what Robertson was told - and what he told Ardern - before he issued his statement linking the National Party's leak to criminal hacking instead of the reality, a simple search on the Treasury website.
We know from Robertson that Makhlouf told him Treasury had been hacked 2000 times and that the GCSB experts had advised him to refer it to the Police.
But Robertson insisted yesterday he didn't receive the GCSB warning before sending out his statement.
Exclusive: How spy agency tried to step in on 'hacking' claims
Audrey Young: Treasury boss misled the public - he must resign
Claire Trevett: The Budget leak - What the Nats were trying to cover up
We need clearer answers from Robertson about why he didn't get that advice about the term "hacking" and why he didn't correct his statement when he did get – and hopefully we will get answers in Parliament's debating chamber.
If Ardern used her common sense, instead of batting away questions about what ministers knew and when, she would issue a timeline setting out the critical events.
She would also issue a statement saying that in the light of new questions being raised, she would welcome any approach by Deputy State Services Commissioner John Ombler to herself and her ministers during his inquiry into Makhlouf, and access to their communications on the matter.
She doesn't need to do that. Ombler may already have asked to talk to relevant ministers.
But a public acknowledgement that she expects ministers to be part of the inquiry would go some way to encouraging more transparency on the issue.
The Ombler inquiry is being conducted by the SSC as Makhlouf's employer, so it is not expected to draw conclusions on the judgment of ministers.
But in the course of the inquiry, it should be able to uncover and verify the salient timelines about advice to ministers, both from Treasury and the GCSB.
There will be two inquiries under way next week into the Treasury Budget leak scandal.
The first is the formal one set up by Hughes which will be run by Ombler into the actions and statements of Makhlouf.
The other will be the one conducted by the National Party during Question Time on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday into the actions of ministers, and primarily Robertson.
The second will be as important as the first.
And as much as some tend to downplay the importance of the debating chamber in the 21st century, it can amplify a scandal, or amplify attempts to deflect or cover up mistakes or misjudgments by ministers.
Unfortunately for National, the rules of the debating chamber mean that any minister, including the Prime Minister, is able to decline to answer a question if he or she believes it is the public interest not to do so.
Ministers need simply say that because it is the subject of an SSC investigation, they do not believe it is in the public interest to answer. Speaker Trevor Mallard may indirectly criticise such judgment calls but he cannot override them.
It will be a test of discipline for National leader Simon Bridges and a test of fairness for Mallard.
Mallard has a habit of needling Bridges, whether deliberately or not, and Bridges has a short fuse when it comes to Mallard.
This is a case in which well-targeted forensic questions from Bridges will have more impact than frenzied claims about a cover-up. It will be a chance for Bridges to combine his political skills in the House with his courtroom experience as a prosecutor.
Robertson is vulnerable on two fronts: what he knew before he issued his statement linking the National Part to criminal hacking and why he said nothing the next day in the light of it.
Of course, National is pretty much in a situation of moral equivalence on the latter point.
It knew the hacking claim was wrong all day Wednesday but did nothing to clear its name with anything as simple as the truth about how it got access to Budget documents.
It chose instead to indulge in histrionics about cover-ups and smears.
In announcing the Makhlouf inquiry, Hughes said he wanted it done before Makhlouf leaves his job on June 27 to run Ireland's central bank.
Hughes, who had a meteoric rise to the top of the public service under the former National Government, will be looking to demonstrate his value to his newish masters by delivering on that ambition.
One thing is clear: now that the heat has been turned up on Makhlouf by revelations about GCSB advice, he should not be able to get out of the fire by resigning.
He had his opportunity straight after the Budget to resign but declined. A process is now under way and needs to be completed, whether or not people step back.