How to reconcile what Jacinda said?

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern attended a Labour Party caucus meeting where a last-minute entrenchment clause in the Government’s controversial Three Waters legislation was discussed, despite her saying on Monday it was “not necessarily something I would be aware of”. …

Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta confirmed, through a spokesperson, the change to the bill was discussed with the Labour caucus – a meeting of all its MPs – in advance of the House sitting.

“We knew it was novel and may not pass the constitutional threshold, but it was still worthy of consideration,” Mahuta said, in an emailed response to questions.

This is Nanaia throwing Jacinda under the bus, after Ardern and Hipkins said they knew nothing about the amendment they voted for. Everyone assumed that the SOP by the Greens was tabled at the last minute, and Mahuta as the Minister in charge decided to have Labour vote for it, on the fly.

But the reality is that Mahuta took the Green SOP to the Labour caucus, and it was either explicitly approved, or there was no objection to it.

This makes it a huge credibility issue for the Prime Minister. I can only think of four explanations, to reconcile what she said, to what we now know.

She wasn’t listening in caucus

Maybe she was bored with Three Waters, and despite the fact she chairs Caucus, she wasn’t listening to Mahuta and didn’t think she had to pay attention to what was being said.

She didn’t understand

Maybe she simply didn’t understand what Mahuta was saying. She may have got confused.

She forgot

Maybe she forgot it was discussed at caucus, even thought it was just a week ago.

She lied

This is the fallback option, if none of the other three explanations are credible.