I'm sorry for banging on about it (especially seeing as you're acknowledging the inaccuracy) but it's quite an important distinction.
Curran did not lose her job as a Minister as a result of the controversies about secret meetings. She retained her position as a Minister, her Ministerial salary and all the perks associated with it. All that she lost was two of her portfolios, and her position in the inner-cabinet.
It was a classic, "on-paper", notional disciplinary action. Curran was left with significantly more than just her job as an MP.
Dont be sorry its a genuine point. Not more than her job as an MP (as I see it) but I do agree. Its not harsh. In her benefit, she has been there for 10 years. Its not that she stole, or took benefits as Turia did, so you can say its poor skill/judgement/ability. OTOH, any party does not need a "capable" (as an MP) but no good otherwise. If I was a CEO, I would not be saying, your not great, you are pretty average at best, I'll keep you on. I would remove her fully, but as I think you mentioned, its a seat situation, so forced to keep her on. not ideal, but Labour etc staying in power is worth more than one MP. She is probably capable just as a MP I have no idea, but as with politics, its not about whats good for the country its whats good for the votes. Thats the failing of our system.