What is it we are supposed to make of the revelation that the Prime Minister, having told us she didn’t know about her party's attempt to entrench aspects of the Three Waters law, turned out to be in the very meeting where it was discussed?

A couple of simple questions.

Firstly, where is the media on this? The story had scant coverage - why is that? Is it not a story? Can the media who ignored it, which is most of them, seriously argue it doesn’t deserve a lot more coverage than it got?

Why did the Prime Minister tell us she didn’t know about it? Not only does that appear not to be true, but also made her look like she didn’t know what was going on in her own party. A party that went to Parliament and tried to entrench a bit of law that was so outside the norm it alarmed every constitutional expert in the country

Why would you want to look out of touch?

They seem by the way to have settled on the term “novel”. It was a novel approach. "We knew it was a novel thing to look at".

Novel is used to try and replace other words like scandal and dishonest. And then if she knew about it, which it appears she did, given Nanaia Mahuta said it was discussed and Jacinda Ardern confirmed she was there, is it possible she was asleep.

I jest.

But if she knew about it, but said she didn’t until it gets exposed, what does that say about her integrity?

And once you get to the Prime Minister's integrity, I go back to the original question about the media and their lack of coverage of this.

• Tim Dower: Don't be fooled by government's Three Waters backdown
• Three Waters backdown: Govt pulls controversial clause
• 'A mistake has been made': PM fronts on Three Waters backdown

A Government is trying to up end the way we conduct Parliament, the law and elections. And what do we get?

Little, if anything.

And if we question the Prime Minister's integrity, that also then brings in their promise to be the most open, honest and transparent Government ever — a line surely now so farcical, it will go down in political history.

One last question; is it the sort of thing being thought about this week in Hamilton as we wait for the result Saturday?

Crime seems to be the top topic, which by the way is an astonishing thing all by itself given the cost of living crisis. Historically the economy, the economy, it’s the economy stupid - is your driving force. So how bad must crime be perceived to top the economy?

But what about our leader? If you can't trust the person running the country, what does that do to your vote?