What does matter is the observance of the doctrine of "No Surprises" at Cabinet level.
Under this informal doctrine, ministers are required to advise the Prime Minister's office if issues arise where it is prudent to seek advice as to whether there is indeed a potential conflict of interest.
In this case the minister did advise the Prime Minister's office as soon as the minister became aware the brother was facing charges.
As Key reported: "The advice I've received is that there is no conflict of interest and the issue can be managed. People appreciate that Cabinet ministers, like anyone else, have family but I'm quite confident the position can be managed."
It's clear that advice would have been sought from the Cabinet Office. And further that the minister had been happy to step down if that was what was required. But Key said "that isn't the advice I've got".
Little could have made a similar response after a judge imposed an interim injunction to suppress the name of the accused and that of the minister.
But I think his response was coloured by the fact he had earlier stood down MP Carmel Sepuloni from her social development spokesmanship when her mother faced benefit fraud charges.
I thought then - and still do now - that he was being unfair when it came to visiting the mother's actions on her daughter.
In the minister's case, he could simply have said it would be quite unfair - and against natural justice - to visit upon a grown sibling allegations involving their brother.
Because the odds are that if he becomes Prime Minister he will at some stage be faced with a choice of whether to support a minister who is in the public eye either through malicious gossip or no fault of their own. Or whether to hang them out to dry simply to clear the air and stop questions.
The reality is that things happen. John Banks' parents were criminals. He rose to be a National police minister. John Tamihere was a Labour Cabinet minister. One of his brothers is a convicted murderer.
"Don't know. Don't care," was my own response when a contact tried to prise out of me information about just which minister's brother is facing child indecency charges.
There was a lot more I could have added about their own prurient interest in this matter. But I didn't. Because the truth is I don't care. I really don't.
If there was a genuine public interest in knowing this detail, that would be a different matter. I'm not going to speculate on what a genuine public interest might entail as that would simply fuel the issue and lead people to erroneous conclusions.
Journalists are frequently "in the know" when it comes to the detail of just who is facing court charges, be it for major crimes or minor ones.
Such information does frequently leak out as the news business is driven by the impulse to "tell the story".
The gossip will inevitably prevail, as gossip does.
But we expect of our national leaders the ability to exercise restraint.
This is one case where Little would earn more respect for himself from across the parliamentary world if he did just that.
