KEY POINTS:
His appearance had been eagerly awaited, the theatrics had been long rehearsed ... but the performance left his audience distinctly underwhelmed.
Anyone who expected Winston Peters to provide some answers - and therefore some accountability - in Parliament yesterday was always hoping for too much.
Riled by the allegations directed at him, Peters was never going to appease his critics by shedding more light on the murk surrounding the handling of large cash donations to New Zealand First.
Peters loves nothing more than being the centre of attention, even when things are going badly. But it often brings out the frustrating worst in him.
It seems he is being perverse for the sake of it, playing a game where he draws satisfaction from pointlessly annoying fellow MPs and the reporters alike.
Yesterday was a prime example, his enjoyment reflected in his smiles as he drove opponents to distraction.
Relaxed as he appeared, though, he made things very clear in one regard.
Singled out for special treatment was Craig Foss. Craig who? The National backbencher has hardly been at the forefront of attacks on Peters. Yet, Peters claimed the Tukituki MP had failed to declare a large company shareholding in the MPs' list of pecuniary interests.
What was good for the goose was good for the gander, no matter how small.
Fighting allegations with allegations of his own did not answer or impress his critics. But it was a clear warning. Anyone trying to dish the dirt on Peters could expect to get the same back in spades and without too much worry about where or on whom it lands.
That warning aside, Peters clearly believes he can tough things out. There is some political logic - though not justification - for him in taking that position. Were he to open up and reveal details about his party's finances, the questioning both inside and outside Parliament would be likely only to intensify.
Not that he was short of opportunities to reveal all to Parliament. He sought and was granted leave by MPs to make a personal explanation. This device has a very serious purpose. It enables an MP to answer allegations which might impugn his or her character.
But Peters used it to say little more than that New Zealand had just witnessed a "media ego explosion". That left an "is that it?" sense of unfulfilled expectation around the House.
When Act's Rodney Hide then complained that Peters had still not provided any answers, Peters made the mistake of noting Hide had not set down a question on the order paper.
Quick as a flash, Hide sought leave so he could ask Peters a question. A lone voice expressed opposition. The voice belonged to Peters. It was a telling moment.
As it is, Parliament's rules on ministerial responsibility do not cover party funding, meaning Opposition questions had to be fired at the Prime Minister under the broad umbrella of whether she still had confidence in Peters as a minister.
Helen Clark obviously thinks - with her fingers crossed - that Peters and Labour, by association, can tough it out. But she has left herself enough room should Peters face more damaging allegations over political funding.
That was evident in her replies to John Key's questions. He probed for what Peters had told her during their lunchtime meeting about what had happened to the $25,000 that Bob Jones paid to the Spencer Trust.
Her replies suggested she had not inquired too deeply into what were NZ First's private affairs.
She said she had no reason to doubt Peters' assurances that there had been no illegalities. He had never led her astray.
The implication was that he would be in big trouble if it was found he had now.
