It is a blessing in many respects that Winston Peters is heading overseas in next week's recess to be Foreign Minister again, a job he handles well.
It means that we can have some respite from him being New Zealand First leader, a job he is handling abysmally at present.
Peters has been reacting badly to what he has portrayed as an injustice being levelled at his party by the media over political donations to the New Zealand First Foundation.
Even when the Serious Fraud Office announced this week it had seen enough to warrant an investigation, Peters persisted with his persecution complex to allege that his party was the victim of a smear campaign by RNZ.
• NZ First Leader Winston Peters denies his MPs sent covert photos to far-right blog
• Jacinda Ardern says she won't stand Deputy PM Winston Peters down amid SFO probe
• Barry Soper: Facing the music - Winston Peters and the NZ First Foundation
• Jacinda Ardern's change of tack on trusting Winston Peters
Most of us would rather let the SFO get on with its job. Then the public can decide whether the person leaking the foundation documents is a thief, as Peters claims, or a heroic whistleblower.
Issues of injustice have pervaded politics this week from announcements yesterday setting up the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the proclamation of innocence by former National MP Jami-Lee Ross and three others in the face of SFO charges in relation to National Party donations; and the case of former Auditor-General Martin Matthews telling MPs he was forced to resign by the former Speaker in an egregiously unfair and unlawful way.
A sense of injustice is a powerful motivating force in politics.
It is rare for politicians to be seen as victims because they rarely are, despite Peters' recent pleadings on Facebook that his party is the victim of a smear.
The image of the Deputy Prime Minister playing a song to reporters in response to an SFO probe of his party is not a joke; it is of a politician who has lost the plot and making light of something deadly serious.
Audrey Young: The Peters-PM partnership and why he won't step aside
Audrey Young: Michael Cullen was right about Mike Moore
Peters either has no one in caucus standing up to him, telling him he is doing more harm than good to his party, or he is ignoring such advice.
He could have done many things in an effort to limit the damage to his party and the Government some time ago.
For example he could have picked up the phone and asked foundation trustees Brian Henry and Doug Woolerton to suspend the activities of the New Zealand First Foundation. He could have asked them to refer themselves to the Electoral Commission or the police or a respected independent person for scrutiny.
Distance from events in New Zealand may give Peters a better perspective on how to handle himself going forward.
There are several potential outcomes of the Serious Fraud Office investigation: concluded before the election and no charges laid - clearly the best case scenario for Peters; investigation concluded before the election and charges laid; investigation ongoing at election time and charges laid after it; investigation ongoing at election time and no charges laid after it.
If charges were to be laid before the election, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern would have to stand down Peters, and she would have few risks in doing so.
Even assuming that charges were not against Peters himself, the fact that the foundation is so closely aligned to the party and that he has so strongly backed the foundation as lawful would require his suspension, if he had not stood down himself.
Of course, a decision before the election to lay no charges would amplify Peters' existing sense of injustice. But that would not necessarily translate to votes and dwelling on it would be counter-productive for Peters.
Nothing in the way this case has played out from the Electoral Commission to the SFO amounts to him having been subjected to an unfair process.
The chances of the SFO reaching a decision before the election are slim. But if the Electoral Commission has already done a significant amount of work, if the same investigators who worked on National's donations inquiry are used, and if the SFO believes it is in the public interest to expedite it, it might be quicker than usual.
Peters was not the only self-proclaimed victim this week. Having originally cast himself as a whistleblower, Jami-lee Ross claims to be victim over recent charges laid by the SFO.
And in an important case over constitutional ethics, not criminal law, Martin Matthews this week described himself as a whistleblower for revealing the deeply flawed process in which he was forced to resign.
He appeared before the Officers of Parliament committee on Thursday claiming redress for the way he was forced to resign in 2017 over the Joanne Harrison fraud case - which had occurred under his watch when he led the Ministry of Transport.
In an interesting piece of timing, the Government addressed two issues of wrongdoing and injustice. The same day Matthews appeared, the Government said it would strengthen the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 to make whistleblowing easier.
And yesterday, Justice Minister Andrew Little unveiled the details of the Criminal Cases Review Commission – part of the Labour-New Zealand First Coalition agreement - allowing apparent miscarriages of justice to be referred to the Court of Appeal.
Little was instrumental in the demise of Matthews, having sought a review of his appointment when he was Leader of the Opposition and questions were being raised as to whether Matthews should have detected the fraudster earlier.
Peters subbed himself on to the committee the day the actual decision was made to force Matthews' resignation or face a dismissal motion in Parliament the next day on the grounds of "disability". He had seven hours to decide.
It was also the day Little resigned as Labour leader and Ardern took over and it was clear the committee wanted the matter dealt with quickly before the House rose for the election.
Matthews appears to be getting a fairer hearing in 2020 from Speaker Trevor Mallard who is chairing the Officers of Parliament committee – but it is still effectively a case of the same committee investigating its own actions.
Parliament is awash with claims of injustice but some claims, such as Matthews', are more just than others.