This writer probably isn't the most balanced, but she does raise some reasonable questions around the timing of the PM's knowledge that this was an alleged assault of a sexual nature.
You also have to square it with this comment she made yesterday in her press conference":
"A month ago I visited New Zealand [Labour Party] Council. Very seriously shared my view that they were not the appropriate place to undertake inquiries around concerning behaviour of members of the Labour Party. But particularly they are not the appropriate place to ever undertake an investigation into a sexual assault. And that would be their view too."
Why would she say to the Labour Party council that they were not the right people to investigate an alleged sex crime, if she didn't know the allegations were of a sex crime?
Because she did. She did know
You're right that she's not balanced. I'd take it further - to say that to draw that conclusion ("she did know") from the comment quoted shows serious cognitive dissonance. It's truly not logical to make such a conclusion from the statement. It's remotely a possibility that she might have known, so you ask the flipping question before suggesting that she might have known as fact. She needs to take a deep breath before submitting stuff for publishing, the editors should be flayed.
It's fake news as presented. Shame on HDPA and the NZH.