If there was ever a week likely to put New Zealanders off politics, you'd argue this would be it.
We saw two male Members of Parliament dismissed for inappropriate behaviour involving women, accompanied by a raft of accusations about game-playing and dirty tactics, leading to fears this election will escalate into a tit-for-tat war between the two largest parties where nothing is off limits.
But amid the fray was another kind of more cynical and arguably more damaging political game-playing, undertaken by New Zealand First.
On Tuesday, the party announced it would not support a bill overhauling how rape trials are conducted, all but ruining the chance of progress in this parliamentary term.
The Sexual Violence Legislation Bill aims to make the rape trial process less traumatic for complainants, and was hoped to be passed into law earlier this year.
Among its more contentious provisions are new rules around whether the complainant's disposition, reputation and sexual history - including with the accused - can be used as evidence; and it would entitle complainants to give evidence and be cross-examined via pre-recorded video.
The bill has been hailed as long overdue and groundbreaking by victims' advocates; but heavily criticised by some legal circles - defence lawyers in particular - as compromising a defendant's right to a fair trial.
New Zealand First cabinet minister Tracey Martin explained the party's decision this week by leaning on the criticisms, saying it "needed more time" before it could support the bill.
Green Party MP and Justice Under-Secretary Jan Logie hit back, saying her office had already provided further information when Martin first raised her hesitation five weeks ago, and never heard back.
The documents provided included the assessments by Crown Law and Attorney-General David Parker that - despite the defence lawyers' concerns - the bill did not breach the Bill of Rights Act.
The information also showed that other countries have brought in similar provisions both around a complainant's sexual history; and pre-recording evidence, with success. Those countries also had opposition from defence lawyers, and made changes anyway.
Logie told the Herald it was both "disappointing and strange" to see Martin's comments on the bill at this stage.
"For New Zealand First to claim at the last minute that they feel 'rushed' and 'not comfortable' is at odds with their stated intention of wanting to see this resolved."
Logie's frustration is understandable. Currently, Government data shows that an estimated one in four women and one in seven people experience sexual violence in their lifetime. Of those reported to police, only a third go to court and only one in 10 end in a conviction.
If you add the number of unreported cases, it is estimated that only 1 per cent of all potential sex crimes result in a conviction.
The defence lobby have sought to undermine the attrition data, saying those statistics were from "victim advocacy". They say the law as it stands is fine.
It is easy to understand the defence lawyers' point of view. They work with vulnerable clients - frequently young, Māori men who do not have good support or understanding of the system - and feel the odds are already stacked against them.
That is definitely true. But it doesn't make the statistics on rape prosecution rates untrue. The numbers are from police data and court data and the New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey (NZCASS), and repeatedly show that rape cases simply do not get to court. Central to this is an unwillingness from complainants to face the bruising trial process - and from police to make them.
If the odds are stacked against anyone, it is rape victims.
You would think that New Zealand First, which prides itself on being tough on law and order, would therefore want to support this bill.
For one, most of its provisions are not radical - they are already underway in other countries - particularly for child witnesses. Martin, the Minister for Children, should understand why that is so important, given 53 per cent of witnesses in sexual violence cases are underage.
Secondly, the ideas in the bill are not new. The basis for the legislation has been in the works since 2009, after the release of the report by the Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence. It is based on two Law Commission reports - and includes ideas previously championed by former National justice minister Simon Power. It is based on attrition surveys, victim surveys, and research about the prevalence of rape. It has been through consultation, it has been through select committee, it has been through Cabinet.
Which is why New Zealand First's claims of being "rushed" seem empty.
It is more likely that once again, the party is playing political football by stalling legislation important to its coalition partners in a bid to differentiate itself before the election.
Winston Peters spoke last weekend about being the "handbrake for silly ideas and a serious accelerator for good ideas" and took credit for stopping other legislative change. So far, the party has stalled proposals on Capital Gains Tax, and Light Rail, and rent relief for landlords. Fine, that's politics.
But playing games with the lives of rape victims should be a step too far.
The best thing that could happen now would be for National to give the bill support. It would be both a step in the right direction for the justice system, and a way to show up New Zealand First.
It would also show its commitment to women. And in a week in which its MP Andrew Falloon having to step down for sending pornography to a teenager, it seems the least it could do.