Another day, another lie from Golly-G

by Cameron Slater on December 1, 2017 at 7:30am

Credit: Luke

I’m starting to believe that Golriz Ghahraman can’t actually recognise the truth.

In February of this year she wrote:

Now this can’t be blamed on editors, journalists or even staff. She wrote it herself.

Note how she has now been promoted to “prosecuting heads of state”. Here is her problem, We know there were no heads of state prosecuted in Rwanda, she only defended former PM of Kosovo, Radovan Karadžić in the Yugoslavia trials and he wasn’t a head of state. Slobodan Milošević was a sitting head of state but Golriz Ghahraman didn’t prosecute him. There were no heads of state prosecuted in the Cambodian trials, in fact only 5 people were prosecuted there and not one was a head of state.

This article contains a direct lie about her human rights legal experience.

-Research by Sally, Impolitkal

Was James Shaw lying or was he lied to?

by Cameron Slater on December 1, 2017 at 8:00am


James Shaw has made two speeches where he claimed that Golriz Ghahraman was a prosecutor at the United Nations.

This is one he gave to the NZ Institute of International Affairs:

In another speech he also said:

And of course, many of you will have already read about Golriz Ghahraman, who came to New Zealand as a nine-year old refugee from Iran, and who is now an Oxford-educated human rights lawyer who puts war criminals on trial at the International Court of Justice in the Hague.

Was he mistaken then as well? Who precisely are these war criminals she put on trial at The Hague? The only person at The Hague she was involved with was Radovan Karadzic…and she was on the defence team!

James Shaw has said he was mistaken about what he said at the speech to the NZ Institute of International Affairs:

Green Party co-leader James Shaw is taking responsibility for a speech he gave in May in which he mistakenly said that Golriz Ghahraman had worked as a prosecutor at UN tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

The admission is the latest in a week in which Ghahraman’s work history and how it has been presented is under intense scrutiny.

Ghahraman worked in the defence team as an unpaid intern at the Rwanda Tribunal for Joseph Nzirorera, who died before he could be convicted of genocide, and in a paid position representing pop singer Simon Bikindi, who was convicted for incitement to genocide.

At The Hague, she worked on the pre-trial defence of Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic, who was found guilty of crimes against humanity. She worked on the prosecution at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal.

But in the speech in May to the NZ Institute of International Affairs, Shaw heaped praise on Ghahraman, saying that she had worked as a prosecutor at the Rwanda Tribunal and The Hague.

“Having fled Iran in 1990 as a child, Golriz is now a human rights lawyer who worked as a prosecutor at the United Nations’ tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. She also worked on the Khmer Rouge tribunal in Cambodia,” Shaw said.

This morning Shaw said he made a mistake and had not run the speech by Ghahraman.

“I didn’t check the speech with Golriz before I gave it. Clearly I got those the wrong way around.”

He got it the “wrong way around” twice. What sort of an idiot does he think we are, to make the same mistake a minimum of twice.

We now have a situation where the leader of the Green party has made some pretty serious mistakes about the credentials of one of his candidates. I simply don’t believe he made a mistake…twice. He’s either lying and was in on the CV embellishment, or he was being lied to.

I’ll be generous and accept he wasn’t lying, but the way he is behaving in sticking up for her makes me wonder if Golriz has him by the short and curlies somehow.

Given the numeous provable falsehoods from Golriz Gharhaman, I believe that James Shaw has been lied to.

Now up to 13 occasions where Ghahraman’s work in Rwanda was lied about or was misleading. How many should I stop at? 20? Also found her first direct lie about her role where she claimed she prosecuted “heads of state”


I think we are now at the point where the considerable damage being done to the Green party now means that they hold the mantle of the most unethical party in parliament.

Soper on Genocide Golly

by Cameron Slater on November 30, 2017 at 9:00am

Credit: Luke

Barry Soper sniffs something whiffy:

The Greens have circled their wagons around their latest MP to land herself in the fudge factory.

It seems the deeper the hole being dug for our first refugee MP, Golriz Ghahraman, the more she keeps digging.

It was the same with Metiria Turei when she admitted to benefit fraud and went on to fudge the facts that, like an attack of borer, had the little bugs coming out of the woodwork.   


That is the problem. It is obfuscation, justification, without actually addressing the isssue, which was the hiding or at the very least economical versions of the truth that existed out there.

Few would take issue with Ghahraman, as a lawyer, joining a defence team representing those accused of genocide in Rwanda where around 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered.

But most would take exception to how the Greens represented her on their websitedescribing her as putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power and restoring communities after war and human rights atrocities. In reality she was a bit player.
That’s the issue. The over-blowing of reality.

In her interview with the Herald that stirred up the hornets’ nest she said she met a defence lawyer working for the Rwandan Tribunal and he invited her over saying they needed a lawyer at the coalface. She volunteered as an intern and now conveniently can’t remember whether she was assigned to one side or the other!

In the latest batch of fudge delivered she was asked whether she’d ever posed with a war criminal, she stammered before saying, no, but admitting to a defence photo with her team in court, saying everybody did. She said it’d be bizarre to say you’d go off as an intern and refuse to sit with you team in a photo.

How could she deny the photo, it was on her private Facebook page, and strangely it has now disappeared. Too late we harvested the lot.

Well a series of photos have been sent to me, one showing her posing alone with a former pop singer called Simon Bikindi who was convicted in 2008 and sentenced to 15 years in jail for incitement to commit genocide. He was found guilty after exhorting, over a public address system, his fellow Hutus to exterminate all the Tutsis whom he referred to as snakes.

Confronted with the photo she now says her commitment’s innocent until proven guilty but she can understand how the photo could be seen by some as jarring. But being involved in the process, she insisted, she wasn’t going to go down the rabbit hole and treat him as a lesser human being and he deserved a fair trial.

That is just too trite. Never before have I seen lowly clerks pose for selfies with their scumbag clients.

Other photos showed her on a United Nations private jet, another sitting with a UN investigator and a prosecution intern at a cafe, extolling the virtues of the Guinness brewed in Rwanda.

Trying to get her to discuss the photos wasn’t easy. She initially agreed, before the lead Greens wagon occupied by a spin doctor intervened insisting on the information being flicked though to her first. When the offer was declined she simply said, okay, we’ll just leave it then.

But a few hours later they had a change of heart, at least that’s a step in the right direction.

There is plenty more to come.

On the day of her election to parliament Golriz lied to the country

by Cameron Slater on November 30, 2017 at 8:15am


At a press conference, on October 7 2017, with James Shaw and other Green party MPs on the day that Golriz Gharhaman was elected to parliament she stated:

“I used to put genocidaires and war criminals on trial”

That busts her totally on her claims that before and since the election she had been totally upfront with Kiwi voters about her past.

That statement is an abject lie. She did no such thing. Firstly, she wasn’t in a position to put them on trial. Secondly in Rwanda and in The Hague she was defending genociaires and war criminals, not putting them on trial. Thirdly, she is inflating her own abilities, skills and actual involvement in those trials.

She then says later that:

“That really speaks to the Green party’s and NZ’s values”

Really? The Green party’s values? What are those?

She is an unethical Green who doesn’t know right from wrong.

She also stated:

“My dream has come from standing up for the most vulnerable”

Yeah because the guys she was defending on genocide charges and war crimes allegations were truly vulnerable. If she had in fact come from standing up for the vulnerable she would have been in Rwanda and The Hague putting these genocidal maniacs away, not defending them. If she truly was for the vulnerable she would have not defended a genocidal maniac who was fighting extradition back to Rwanda to face justice.

She has not stood up for the vulnerable, she has stood up for the powerful, murdering, killers. What she did for the vulnerable was to diminish crimes, excuse genocide, and obfuscate in court and delay. That isn’t standing up for the vulnerable victims, that is stomping all over their already considerable suffering.

After Metiria Turei’s fall from grace and now the ongoing lies and obfuscations from Golriz Gharhaman it is apparent that the Green party is the most unethical party in parliament. They simply cannot tell right from wrong.

She and her defenders are a piece of work. They won’t work with National, but they will work with war criminals.

Another day and another alleged Rwandan war criminal defended by Golriz Gharhaman

by Cameron Slater on November 29, 2017 at 7:30am

Phil Quin asked on Twitter:

I’d be curious to know whether @golrizghahraman has ever worked to prevent the extradition of a war criminal who lied about his past in order to gain refugee status in New Zealand.


Well, a search of published judgments shows that yes, indeed, Golriz Gharhaman was involved in the defence of an alleged Rwandan war criminal who was seeking to have his deportation order overturned.

A Rwandan living in New Zealand, and suspected of being involved in genocide in the 1990s, is trying to secure confidentiality for witnesses in his defence.

The man, who cannot be identified, denies the allegations, and says his immigration approval should not be cancelled.

So far there has been no attempt to extradite or deport him, but he has been told his status is being reconsidered.

The Court of Appeal in Wellington was told on Thursday that, as part of that reconsideration, he wants New Zealand authorities to see the 35 witness statements he has.

However, nearly 20 of those are from witnesses who gave statements only on condition they not be shown to Rwandan authorities, the man’s lawyer, Grant Illingworth, QC, said.

The man wants an undertaking from New Zealand immigration authorities that it will not disclose the confidential statements.

The court has reserved its decision on how the statements should be treated.

Isn’t it amazing that she only seems to defend those accused of war crimes in Rwanda, and never works for the victims. This time it was in NZ.

There are two judgments regarding this suspected war criminal. The first is the High Court judgment where the ratbag was seeking to get all the information of those witnesses who support him seen and withheld from Rwandan authorities who are seeking to prosecute him. He lost that and then appealed and lost that too.

It appears though that there may well be another suspected war criminal she defended in NZ. The NZ Law Society wrote about Ghahraman on November 7 2017, just a few weeks ago.

She has also been acting for two Rwandans living in New Zealand who are being sought for extradition. The allegations relate to the brutal tribal war in 1994.

“Things are very different in Rwanda now, it’s a very repressive military dictatorship, so genocide accusations especially against political dissidents are very common and that is happening around the world, and that may well be what is happening here.”

So, it appears she is on the side of Hutu criminals, and has not a care or a thought for the victims of their violence. In this case, She has acted, in contrast to her previous claims about protecting human rights and holding the powerful to account, she was trying to prevent this accused war criminal being extradited to face charges levelled in the tribunal. She was actively defending an alleged war criminal, in NZ, to prevent him actually being held to account.

It seems her ethics around human rights are rather elastic. Phil Quin notes the elasticity:

Which NZ lawyer told this load of rubbish — straight from the genocide denier’s hymn sheet — in an attempt to stop a war criminal from being extradited to face his accusers, while comparing 1994 Rwanda favorably to today?


When will the Greens stop defending this woman, who is at best economical with the truth, at worst a lying defender of war criminals.

What the Greens don’t understand is that their circle jerk of virtue signalling tweeters don’t represent reality. Voters don’t think like lawyers, much less like so-called human rights lawyers. They think that these bastards should have been strung up not given a fair trial, and they really hate the lawyers, especially gobby attention seeking lawyers.

I think it is time she went.


-NZ Law Society, Fairfax, research by Sally

Now, we get to the Iran claims from Golly G

by Cameron Slater on November 29, 2017 at 8:00am

During her maiden speech, Golriz Ghahraman said:

This was just the backdrop to a bloody war we fought against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. I remember the bombs, the sirens, running to the basement. Waiting. Mostly I remember the kids, my age, who stopped speaking because of shell shock.

You can well imagine if you were close to constant combat, or under rocket attack constantly that this may well occur. Israeli children often suffer such distress living under constant Arab rocket fire from Gaza.

The Iran- Iraq war was a particularly vicious affair, including the use of poison gas, chemical weapons, artillery and rocket fire, not to mention massed infantry attacks. It lasted eight years and killed several hundred thousand people. It was a terrible conflict. Wikipedia states that there were 100,000+ casualties on both sides of the war.

Fairfax reported that:

Ghahraman was nine when her family fled their home town of Mashhad in the post Iran-Iraq War.  


This is where things become interesting. The Iran-Iraq War was actually a rather confined affair. As you can see from the map below the fighting was confined to the immediate border area, and in particular in the southern border area immediately north of Basra.

So where is Mashhad in relation to this eight-year border war?

Is it near the border with Iraq, where the gassing, chemical weapons, bombing and missiles occurred?

The answer is no. If I used the map above I couldn’t actually show you where the location of Mashhad is because it is near the border of Turkmenistan and it would be under the key block in the top right-hand corner, the furthest possible distance in Iran that you could get to be away from the war zone. It is, in fact, 1,600kms away from the combat zones.

Perhaps she is as confused about this as she is about whether or not she was a defence or a prosecuting lawyer in war crimes tribunals? I mean she was very young at the time, and before she embarked on a journey just two years after the war ended in 1990 in which her whole family managed to get permission to travel from Tehran to Kuala Lumpur to Auckland and supposedly on to Fiji. I imagine it must have cost a considerable amount of her family’s savings to buy such expensive long-range tickets for a little holiday in Fiji at a time when a) airfares were horrendously expensive, and b) the Iranian economy was in tatters after an expensive and debilitating eight-year war.

But I digress.

During a Radio NZ profile, it quotes her as saying she was born in Mashhad. This is interesting because in order for her to claim she was bombed and shelled and witnessed shell-shocked children her family would have had to move almost 1600km CLOSER to the combat zone than where she was born.

Of course, Mashhad may have been bombed at some point. I checked Wikipedia for the City, and it seems there was some bombing of Mashhad…in 1912…at a shrine…where several people and pilgrims were killed. But it was Russia who bombed Mashhad back in 1912, long before her parents were even a twinkle in their parents’ eyes. There was another bombing in 1994, when Golriz Gharhaman was 13 years old. Perhaps it was this bombing that caused her to see shellshocked children and suffer bombs and rockets?

Well, no. Because by 1994 she was in New Zealand as an asylum seeker with her parents, and the bombing took place at a shrine which killed 25 people.

There simply is no record of her birthplace ever being involved in the Iran-Iraq war. It was simply too far away from the border areas.

Source/ Kiwiblog

So, Mashhad has only ever been bombed twice, once in 1912 and again in 1994. She wasn’t born in 1912 and wasn’t in Mashhad in 1994.

I have now reached the point where I cannot believe a word this woman says. Not a single thing she says stacks up.

What makes matters somewhat problematic for her now is that she made her claims in Parliament. There is now prima facie evidence that she misled parliament. Unfortunately, that requires a member to lay a Privileges Committee complain, but National seems rather squeamish in saying anything much at all about the apparent mis-speaking of Golriz Gharhaman. It is a serious matter to mislead parliament, surely some honourable member might like to take some action?

Now to potential weapons systems, even though we know none were ever fired at much less hit Mashhad.

It can’t have been FROG or SCUD missiles, their maximum range is only 800km. They wouldn’t have even reached Tehran and only about halfway to Mashhad. None of Iraq’s ballistic missiles, either liquid or solid fuel had anywhere near the range to be able bomb Mashhad. Artillery has a range at best of 50km.

That only leaves air delivery, or aircraft which could have bombed her…could it have been that even though we know Mashhad was never attacked, ever, during the Iran-Iraq War? They had Mirage F1, Su-20, Mig-21 and Mig-23, Mig-25, Tu-16, Tu-22, and French Super Etendards. Only the Tu-22 has sufficient combat radius to mount an air strike on Mashhad. But they would have had to fly a roundabout route to avoid anti-aircraft countermeasures as they crossed the entire country of Iran to deliver these bombs which never landed so that Golriz Gharhaman could have her recollections of bombs and shells landing causing children to be shell-shocked.

Unless she lived elsewhere, but surely she would have said that?

Or she is a big fat liar. In which case she has misled the House.

You really don’t recover from headlines like this

by Cameron Slater on November 29, 2017 at 9:00am

There comes a time in politics when it is no longer tenable for you to continue.

Golly G has reached that point. When the NZ Herald is the last to join the fray and they bust your chops with a headline like that above, then your political career is over.

Green MP Golriz Ghahraman worked as part of the legal defence team for Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadžićwho was found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity.  


He got 40 years in prison and will die there.

​Party co-leader James Shaw is standing by his MP, saying her work on international tribunals as both a defence and prosecution lawyer is all part of a robust justice system.

But her profile page on the Green Party website has now been changed to more accurately reflect the legal defence work she did at the Rwanda Tribunal and The Hague, and the prosecution work she did at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal.

In a series of tweets ​this week, former Labour staffer Phil Quin criticised Ghahraman’s work at the Rwanda Tribunal, saying she volunteered to defend “the worst killers known to man” and calling her a genocide-denier.

“Any MP who acted as a voluntary intern to defend war criminals, and authors papers that deny the Rwandan genocide, must resign,” said Quin, who lived and worked in Rwanda for several years.

In a comment piece on Newsroom, ​he added: “It’s one thing for a UN defence lawyer to be assigned to defend ratbags. It’s quite another to seek them out in a voluntary capacity.”

Ghahraman worked as an unpaid intern as part of a team that defended Joseph Nzirorera, who died before he could be convicted of genocide, and in a paid position as part of a team representing pop singer Simon Bikindi, who was convicted for incitement to genocide.

Quin published a photo of a smiling Ghahraman with Bikindi on Twitter today.

Shaw said Quin’s attacks were politically motivated.

“I think Phil knows as well as anybody that a functioning justice system requires both a rigorous prosecution and a rigorous defence in order to make sure that the trial actually delivers the result its intended to.”

James Shaw is in full corpse cuddling mode again. Phil Quin has no problems at all with how justice systems work. What he has a problem with is the deliberate obfuscation of Golly G. He also has a problem with the dishonesty…and the fact she seems to only care about defending Hutu scumbags, including two who were hiding here.

James Shaw is about to get another lesson in realpolitik and it is coming hard.

I think, and you may shudder at this, that Martyn Bradbury is right, the Greens are shit at politics.

If this had been Judith Collins there’d be many more column inches devoted to this. The fact the Media party is now reporting it can be attributed to persitent and accurate research done by bloggers and social media commentators. The mainstream media have been found wanting on this.

Now we are also aware of massive holes in her Iranian childhood, time is ticking on her spell in parliament.

Winston Peters promised they would be made public but coalition documents remain a secret

by SB on November 28, 2017 at 8:30am

Credit: Comrade Jacinda FB page

The Government is refusing to release a secret document with directives for new ministers, despite Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters promising it would be made public.

[…] “It’s a bad start for a Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister who have promised to be a more transparent and open Government,” Bill English said.

The existence of the 38-page document was first revealed by Peters the day after Labour and New Zealand First signed a more slender eight-page public coalition agreement.

Speaking to media after the allocation of ministerial portfolios, he described it as “a document of precision on various areas of policy commitment and development”.

“These are directives to ministers with accountability and media strategies to ensure that the coalition works […]

“We’ve put a lot of thought into it, in fact day one of our negotiations that was the first subject we raised, how are we going to handle a cohesive coalition arrangement?”

At the time, he said the document was still being finalised, but would cover the appointment process for diplomats.

Peters said then the document would be made public, saying it was “for the province of the Prime Minister to release”.

So there is the money shot. The only person who we can blame for the documents not being released is the Prime Minister. Perhaps Ardern is not keen on the general public learning just how desperate the Labour Party was to gain power.

However, in response to an Official Information Act request from Newsroom seeking the document’s release, Jacinda Ardern’s adviser Heather Simpson claimed “the Prime Minister does not hold any such official information”.

Huh? gif

Simpson’s letter referred to Section 2 of the Act, saying official information covered only information held by “a Minister of the Crown in his official capacity”.

[…] Wellington lawyer Graeme Edgeler said the document appeared to qualify as official information based on Peters’ description of it.

[…] While an agreement that covered the parties’ political or parliamentary roles would be exempt from the OIA, that did not appear to be the case here, Edgeler said.

“If … it is going to cover things that the Government is doing as the Government, not as MPs in the House, then I can’t see how this could be refused on the basis it’s not about ministers.”

English said the document was “clearly official information” and should be released, given the public’s need to understand how the new coalition would be run.

[…] A spokesman for Ardern said the coalition agreement which had been publicly released was “the only official document that guides the agreed work programme of Labour and New Zealand First in Government”.[…]

– Newsroom

This to me has the feel of a woman who hides her receipts from her partner after going shopping and then declares that her bags are chock full of absolute bargains.

Credit: SB Whaleoil

How’s about that transparency we were told Jacinda and the Greens would bring to government?

by Cameron Slater on November 27, 2017 at 5:00pm

How’s about that transparency we were told Jacinda and the Greens would bring to government?

Turns out not so much, according to Stacy Kirk at Fairfax:

The Government is facing a mountain of questions – more than 6000 to be exact.

They’ve been lodged by an army of National MPs with nothing but time on their hands and it should be no surprise to Labour Ministers, who have so far refused to release much detail, if any, about their first actions in office.

In a 100-day programme, where major reform is being pushed through at break-neck speed, that is cause for concern.

Claims of “hypocrisy” levelled by some commentators at National’s record in Government are true, but they’re no defence.We should all be demanding those answers.   

And it might be early, but on the current trend those accusations aren’t far from being squarely levelled back to LabourThey and the Greens made much of their desire to “bring transparency back to Government” on the campaign trail.

And where is it? Another bumper sticker slogan. Virtue signalling the electorate.

Labour is also yet to release what’s known as the “Briefings to Incoming Ministers” – or BIMs.

They are the documents prepared by the experts and officials, delivered to ministers in their first week to give them a crash course on the portfolio they’ve just been handed – in some cases rendering them responsible overnight for the spending of public funds totalling billions.

All of them have been requested under the Official Information Act by reporters across New ZealandAll of them have been denied by the Government on the grounds they’re about to be released publicly anyway. 

The trouble with that is the law actually applies to occasions where the document in question is yet to be printed or the minister hasn’t had a chance to read it first.

These were read by the ministers more than a month ago, and its understood to decision on when to release the BIMs – state sector wide – is to come from the Prime Minister’s Office.

Jacinda can’t make decisions? What’s the hold up, they’ve had them for a month, presumably read them? Why haven’t they been released? Why is Labour breaking the law? Transparency?

“[The section] should not be used to delay the release of information which is intended to be incorporated in other material which, although to be made public at a later date, may still require the making of other policy decisions,” is the expressed order of the Ombudsman.

Looks like transparency promises were rather hollow.

Bill English gave Labour fair warning when he said “we’re not here to make this place run smoothly”. He copped criticism, but he’s rightthey are there to hold the Government to account – nothing more. 

Many are familiar with the verbal jousting of Question Time where this is publicly done. But Opposition MPs have another very important democratic tool available to them in the form of Written Questions. 

They can lodge questions to ministers on matters related to their portfolios, and ministers must respond within six working days. There is no limit as to how many questions can be lodged, they must be concise and targeted.

Undoubtedly, 6000 written questions in a month is a lot.

But is it fair to demand those answers? Absolutely. Is it hypocritical of National to be complaining they’re being blocked? You bet. Does that matter? Not one bit.

Because the answers, or at least the willingness to provide those answers, benefit New Zealand as a democracy. 

Finally a Media party member who knows reality when they see it.

In July 2010 Labour asked 8791 questions in a single month.

More than 7000 of those questions came from MP Trevor Mallard alone.

Now in the Speaker’s chair, it’s his jurisdiction to force answers where they are not fairly being withheld if a complaint is laid.

Labour is getting off to a poor start on transparency. 

What goes around, comes around.

HDPA on Jacinda’s first month: Not good

by Cameron Slater on November 27, 2017 at 7:30am

Heather du Plessis-Allan looks at Jacinda Ardern’s first month on the job.

She starts by recounting the mis-step of pretending that Trump didn’t know who she was. HDPA reckons it wasn’t that big a deal world-wide or diplomatically, except:

For Ardern herself, though, this is a personal mistake she couldn’t afford to make. The risk for her is that this misstep adds to the growing impression that she doesn’t know what she’s doing.

And not just Ardern, but the rest of Labour too.

At any stage in a Government’s life — but especially at the start when we’re first getting to know the characters — there is the risk of a narrative taking hold. All that requires is three or more balls-ups that seem similar enough to look like a pattern.

Once there’s a pattern, anything that looks even a tiny bit similar only reinforces it further.

So far, the pattern is that Labour is out of its depth.

Their talent pool was as shallow as a car-park puddle, so it is to be expected that anything deeper than a bird bath would put them out of their depth.

First, there was the extremely clumsy moment in Parliament when National tricked Labour into striking a deal it didn’t need to strike to get Trevor Mallard elected to the Speaker’s job.

The error was so simple as to be embarrassing: no one in Labour appeared to have counted the MPs in the debating chamber.

Next, Kelvin Davis showed he’s not up to the job of filling in for ArdernWhile the grown-ups were out of the country, it fell to him to be acting PM, but he couldn’t even answer questions in the House without colleagues first whispering the answers to him.

And then there was Ardern’s handling of our offer to take Manus Island refugees.

Some may see Ardern as ballsy for pushing Australia around a bit, others see her as naive for failing to realise how much she was pushing Australia around, and how it was annoying Malcolm Turnbull.

That’s a pattern alright. Spot on Heather.

The risk of a narrative is that, once it takes hold, it’s hard to shake.

George W Bush became the stupid guy, Al Gore became the lying guy, Helen Clark became the matron of the nanny state.

It’s never entirely true, but if enough people think it is, the damage is done and it punishes you forever.

Ardern doesn’t deserve this narrative to take hold. She’s articulate, a fast learner and is actually getting things about 98 per cent right. That’s no easy task.

After that brutal summary it seems HDPA needed to sprinkle just a little bit of unicorn farts and pixie dust around.

Labour leaders before her took months just to learn how to look at TV cameras and talk at the same time. But now the narrative is pencil-sketched waiting for Labour to colour it inIt would do Labour good to avoid the errors it’s making. That will avoid something inane like Ardern’s travel yarn getting blown out of proportion like it has.\

Wait until Manus Island blows up in her face, which it will.