This Tuesday Nicky Hager is releasing a new book.
No details have been given yet but I suspect that it will investigate Taxpayer’s Union and other Astroturf organisations.
And the TPU (or should that be TP Ltd) is worried.
A book about the TPU has been rumoured for a while.
Back in 2023 the TPU put this press release out which said:
The Taxpayers’ Union has heard from sources that Nicky Hager is working on a book which is focused at the Taxpayers’ Union. We are aware of him approaching former members of staff asking them to breach confidences.
Chairman of the Taxpayers’ Union, Laurie Kubiak said:
“With elections often being the political equivalent of the ‘silly-season’, we wanted to make sure no one can be left with false impressions about who funds the Taxpayers’ Union and what we are about.
“Hager has in the past claimed he did not put allegations to the subjects of his books on the basis that they might injunct him. We won’t do so. Like any other journalist, Mr Hager he has the opportunity to approach us for comment – in fact, we’re happy to be interviewed by him so he can put any allegations to us.
“Nicky Hager has previously accused groups and individuals of having a secret agenda. The Taxpayers’ Union has an agenda, but it isn’t secret! We stand for lower taxes, less waste, and more accountability.
“Hager is very good at collecting disparate facts and then weaving them to suit an interpretation using selective and partial use of those facts. For example, in a previous book, Mr Hager used emails 11 months apart to suggest a sinister motive, even though the emails were totally unrelated.
“It is no surprise the Taxpayers’ Union is Mr Hager’s latest target. He is coming for us because we are successful. We are successful because we have hundreds of thousands of subscribed supporters, and more than 23,000 donors. There is a very sad history of hacks and theft of data from centre-right groups in New Zealand. It seems that if you are successful in advocating centre-right ideas you tend to get hacked by Nicky Hager’s friends.
The statement then essentially gives up the ghost by admitting that it has links to the Atlas Network, Groundswell and Hobson’s Pledge.
But its funding is a mystery. It does not disclose the details of donors. It claims that it is the recipient of a large number of donations from many sources. But there can be lots and lots of small donations and one big donation and what TP Ltd says is still true.
If you want to learn more about Atlas and its operations in Aotearoa can I offer my post from January 2024. I stand by every word of it.
And interestingly this morning Q&A invited TP Ltd’s Jordan Williams onto the show nominally to talk about the ideal tax take policy TP Ltd had just released.
He said that TP Ltd incorporated as a company because it was afraid of being bombarded with information requests. Under section 80 of the Incorporated Societies Act 2022 a member is permitted to ask for information held by the society and there are limited grounds for refusing a request.
My jaw dropped when I heard his explanation. TP Ltd has bombarded local goverment with multiple information requests.
More likely it has registered as a company because it was close to qualifying for a requirement for its accounts to be audited.
Williams was finally asked if he thought that TP Ltd would be the subject of Hager’s book. He fudged his answer.
I look forward to buying Hager’s book.
Dirty Politics in 2014 created a huge splash and if it was not from Bomber Bradbury’s and Kim Dotcom’s disastrous “Moment of Truth” meeting, which was disastrous for the left and made us look messy, there may have been a change of Government.
The Hollow Men, released in 2006, resulted in the demise of National leader Don Brash. And Seeds of Distrust released in 2002 made Labour’s re-election prospects much more difficult. Each book had a major effect on politics.
If I can I will put up a live feed of the launch.
And stand by. This could get interesting.
Update
Live feed should be here.
Update 2
The book is called “Dirty Work – the Taxpayers union and New Zealand’s hard right”
Jordan Williams was very shifty throughout that interview.
I got the strong impression they had him on so they could ask him questions about the book. The questions that Jack Tame were very carefully prepared and very pointed.
I am sure the book will go flying off the shelves if that is what it is about lol.
The nACTf CoC is is a machine for the relentless upwards redistribution of wealth. ‘Government’ by and for the sorted – a ‘dropkick’-suppression machine. Move-On!
https://thestandard.nz/this-trick-of-national-could-win-them-the-2026-election/
If it is about the TPU, then I doubt many will care. I am not sure that many even know what it is, or even care about it. And those who do know about it probably wouldn't be surprised about funding sources anyway.
Otoh, maybe they prefer to fly under the radar.
"The TPU's "nearly 200,000 members and supporters across NZ" might be a tad disappointed at your reckon about the lack of public recognition of their 'union'.
Otoh, maybe they prefer to fly under the radar."
I wonder how many are media, left-wing activists, bloggers, et al, who are signed up "members" just to keep an eye of the TPU…? Take them out of the equation and member is: two. Jordan and his mum.
please fix your user name typo
It won't matter, tpu s corruption like John keys is to nuanced to be grasped by most, unfortunately
And then the big chunk of right wingers that think dirty is ok as long as it’s their side winning
The book could be part of a thoughtful phalnx of forward and practical thinkers. This is interesting:
https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=183397 Overhauling democracy | Sept. 20, 2026
by Roy Murphy
[It is a good article – everyone should read it thoroughly, including me. I would like to know if it refers to an essential step if people in communities are to take more decisions and go forward together. That is, there needs to be classes educating on the various matters involved, at a 101 level. Then specialised matters; as in how to run meetings, (there is mention of that in this article) and how to exactly define what people mean, how to utilise written concise questions to avoid waffling on. Also to keep records of time spent and numbers attending and show that as 'vital community hours' spent.
And point out that if people are coming forward to consider matters, they must prepare themselves with background information, and then have considered decisions vetted in an overview by an informed and disinterested auditor. and reports be made to those who follow and support the community on progress, cost and method, and how many young people are involved.
And that last is essential. We oldies have stuffed up the world through not understanding the circular nature of humanity's dysfunction, and they need to know the ways to go forward, learning from mistakes and clear in their choice of goals and the need for the suitable and right outcomes.
Please use some marker to differentiate your words from your quote. I've added quotation indents now. If you can use coloured text, you can use those 😉
I'll be looking forward to buying it!
As for the TPU, it's high-time the media looked at Tax Justice Aotearoa, for some of their much vaunted Balanced Journalism we keep hearing about.
Otherwise, well, there might be a few complaints to the Press Council and BSA about a lack of balance…
If he has enough information to write a book about the Tax Payers Union, then I predict there is going to be some bombshells in it.
He is a careful writer who thoroughly checks out the accuracy of his sources before rushing into print so… roll on Tuesday.
I'd expect that
a) it will be a well-researched, readable and informative book
and
b) it will have very little effect on the election
(See dozens of excellent books written about Donald Trump, by reputable journalists and academics. Accuracy is not measured in votes).
b) it will have very little effect on the election.
It is the collective wisdom of the experts that it takes two months for most policy announcements and related issues to filter through to the minds of the average voter.
It's six and a half weeks away from the election, and given the inevitable 'noise' from the political right and their media acolytes, I fear your prediction will prove correct.
Coalition of Cockups voters, mostly, are aware that their favoured parties are venal, self interested and cruel.
It doesn't appear to affect their voting, however.
Many seem to revel in the cruelty, so long as it is directed towards "the others" and having the crooks on, "our side"!
I'm of the same opinion, in thar dirty politics didn't stop the nats, but it dawned on me today that it did force the nats to put serious distance between them selves and the oily whale.
Do hopefully the toilet paper union will get arnt back to the shadows
Much as I dislike the TPU and agree it's a blatant right-wing astroturf, isn't this true of all groups? I make donations but I don't want the recipients making that public. I'm with Jesus when it comes to donations: "Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men."
Are you instead thinking there should be a threshold above which donations should be public? For example, someone donating $50 a month to a group isn't a public interest matter, but if someone hands that group $50,000 it is of public interest?
More like $20k. Personally I'd set it as something like a % of a median individual income from the the stats of the previous year. That would mean that it was directly associated with purchasing power, and less likely to require regulatory or legislative updates.
Or you think about politics, electorate candidates are currently restricted to spending $32,900k. That gives a political benchmark for what is a reasonable expenditure. What about disclosures at half an electorate candidate spending limit which is a direct equivalent for a political influence operation.
It'd also mean that if it applied to registered promoters like the TPU (which if they aren't then they should be) would need to have declared most of their major contributors to the public view.
Like Micky, I strongly suspect that a very few contributors or organisations provide almost all of the finance for organisations like the TPU and FSU. That their claims of large numbers of small contributions is a complete fabrication.
I’d like to know who is actually providing their finance because I suspect a lot of it is from overseas organisations and individuals who mean harm to our population, voters and taxpayers.
I imagine it will be the nuts and bolts of Hager's story.
Off and on for years now, and for personal reasons, I have been digging into a situation that existed in this country in the 1970s and 1980s. Anyone who lived through the era as an adult or near adult, will be able to guess the broad outline of the subject matter. What I have found thus far is: the revenue used to manipulate this country along a particular path almost certainly did not come from a specific country (or countries) which was the assumption at the time, but rather an industrial complex with universal reach. It was not provided with NZ's interest in mind!
History does have a habit of repeating itself.
Requiring groups (particularly political lobby groups) to publicly disclose donations above $20,000 over a 12-month period would be a good idea.
2. I can't imagine a whole book on the Taxpayers' Union, just like Dirty Politics would have been little more than a trifold flyer if it only focused on WhaleOil. It would have to explore that organisation's links to other think tanks, to make it interesting. When I heard about the book, I imagined maybe the tobacco lobby, Atlas and maybe others. I'm keen to see what it is actually about!!
3. It's a good article, but it doesn't tell me when I can get a copy of the book at my nearest Whitcoulls bookstore!! Does anyone know the answer to that?
They usually appear soon after the launch. It's in their interest because they want to attract prospective buyers while the topic is hot.
The Atlas link is almost a certainty. That is when the book might get interesting, especially since Luxon is on record expressing his support and admiration for the outfit.
It's a bit weird. It's not listed on the publisher's website – so it won't be included in any of the aggregator feeds that inform bookshops.
Its not on the websites of either Whitcoulls or Unity (which is more than a bit surprising).
I wonder if its been so under wraps, that it just hasn't been listed anywhere at all. Which makes marketing it a bit hard. This is seriously unusual – even with embargod titles – publishers supply a placeholder title and ISBN – so bookshops can get their orders in.
Perhaps it's not in general release yet – and the copies sold this evening at Unity are advance copies.
This can happen if books get delayed in transit – nothing is actually printed in NZ any more.
Or it may just be a marketing stunt – and all the data will be supplied tomorrow.
or they didn't want leaks ahead of the launch.
Difficult to see what can be leaked using an author, a title an ISBN (the standard number used for book supply) and a publisher name.
That’s all that’s needed for booksellers to pre-order their copies for delivery on the publication date.
Everything except the title and ISBN was already released in the publicity notification for the Unity launch. If they were totally paranoid, they could have provided a pre-publication title, e.g "Next book"
[this happens all the time for bestsellers, who have a publication slot reserved before the title of their next blockbuster has been confirmed]
It really seems like a marketing gimmick to increase publicity.
And can fall flat. Many people aren't willing to pre-order, they want to rock up to the bookshop the next day, and get it. If they can't buy it – a chunk of them will just move on. Booksellers are absolutely on top of making sure hot titles are on the shelves on publication day – for very good reason.
The title wasn't released until the launch last night. For obvious reasons. My guess is that this meant it wasn't on websites etc.
I see it's now for sale on multiple websites.
You absolutely can list a book on bookseller websites with a default title, like "Untitled". So long as it has a unique ISBN – it can be listed. It's the ISBN (international standard book number), which is unique to each edition, which is actually used for listing and ordering, not the title.
And then, using the ISBN as a match point, update the title once the book is released. Book data is updated all the time, via publisher feeds, it’s just standard.
Here is also a film from the past recalled by Gordon Campbell to take interest in, touching on Jim Anderton. https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2609/S00051/on-the-ongoing-relevance-of-jim-anderton.htm
On The Ongoing Relevance Of Jim Anderton
Monday, 21 September 2026, 1:19 pm
Article: Gordon Campbell
During the mid to late 1980s, Anderton was the only significant public figure of resistance to the Labour government’s headlong embrace of Thatcherism. Public assets owned by the public – that were the foundation blocks of the nation’s prosperity – were being gleefully privatised by zealots entranced by market forces, which they had imbued with magical powers….
Note:
Footnote Two: In the coming weeks, Last Man Standing can be seen in the following metropolitan centres. Depending on demand, screenings in provincial theatres may follow.
Auckland: The Rialto theatre in Newmarket begins screenings on Thursday 24th September – with a Q&A afterwards featuring former Alliance MP Matt Robson and the film’s director Gerd Pohlman
The Bridgeway theatre on the North Shore starts its screening son Sunday, September 27 – again with a q&a featuring Matt Robson and Gerd Pohlman
Christchurch : The Lumiere theatre season starts on Thursday September 24.
Wellington : The Lighthouse Petone theatre will begin screenings on Thursday September 24 – with a special q&a screening on Sunday September 27 featuring Anderton’s long-time assistant Sally Griffin and (perhaps) Anderton’s former economic adviser David Steele.
The Lighthouse Cuba theatre starts its screenings on Thursday October 1st, with a Q&A featuring Sally Griffin and Gerd Pohlman.
Dunedin: The Meto theatre in Dunedin will begin screenings on either September 25 or 26 – with a q&a on September 27 featuring the film’s editor Shane Loader.
Thanks grey.
Here's a trailer
I will try and summarise Hager’s speech at the launch.
The book is all about the Taxpayer's Union and New Zealand's hard right.
He talks about race baiting as a political weapon. He refers to the 2023 campaign and TPU's extraordinary funding and its effect on the 2023 election.
It is based on insider leaks from people upset at the direction politics was taking.
Tobacco links are mentioned.
He mentions angry resentful and fearful people being used as political pawns and how they are harming our democratic politics.
He describes them as being the least ethical people in politics.
He asks "what was Luxon doing keeping company with these people".
Felix Geiringer summary from the launch:
https://bsky.app/profile/barristernz.bsky.social/post/3mw3j5g5f7c2n
Thanks. So there's a chapter on the Maiki Sherman hit job, another on tobacco lobbyists, and stuff about needing to get the big money out of NZ politics, and some stuff about Jordan Williams abysmal attitude to women (what a surprise!)
"Dirty Work" is an apt description.
Nicky Hager has had an endless barrage of harassment by the police, being the pawns of the political right, but has not buckled.
His books should be textbooks in NZ secondary schools, but because of political pressure will never be considered anything more than counter-culture.
Probably so – which is sort of weird. Because for some of us, the book is just providing the detail of what we always assumed was the case. Because this is how capital behaves at all times and in all places, only the names change. Which means that any sort of coherent historical and economic understanding is 'counter-culture'. Things are really badly inverted and stuffed up.
Was at the launch, and now fighting over the book with hubby.
Place was packed, overflowing onto the footpath, books snapped up, most people excited to get to see the truth about these ratbags. And a few faces in the crowd looked very, um, fixed smiles as they handed over their card…LOL
Tpu has completely vanished from my Facebook feed, which has been flooded of late, rat scurring back to the sewer hopefully.
The Green Party launch of lobbying regulation recently could not have been more apt or more timely.
This book deserves to help mobilise the activist base in Wellington at least for this election.
It is chilling to see how well our Ministers and our public servants are actively avoiding public scrutiny and how effectively corporate interests have become law here.
I salute the courage of Nicky Hager.
Even if Hager is not always right, his courage is undeniable. The pressure put on him in the past was disgraceful. And illegal. Perhaps we might need a reminder …
NZSIS media statement – settlement with Mr Hager regarding 2012 activity | New Zealand Security Intelligence Service
I realise most of those here are cheering for this stuff, right?
But, I don't think Hager does himself any favours by not putting his allegations to those he accuses prior to publishing.
There have already been strong public denials of fact by those he accuses, asserting that what was claimed simply didn't happen.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/1526577/1000-percent-wrong-hilarious-how-david-farrar-reacted-to-nicky-hager-s-new-book
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/taxpayers-union-denies-allegations-in-nicky-hager-book-dirty-work-that-lobby-group-faced-sexual-harassment-claim-from-staff-member/XKLPQQKE4ZAKPBHZC333GUPBP4/
From the second link:
The problem is, even if there is truth in the book, publishing stuff if there is clear contrary evidence tends to undermine the credibility of the book as a whole. It would be a lot more compelling if he was to actually include the responses by those he accuses, and then provide evidence that undermines those responses.
Well they would say that wouldn’t they? They aren’t going to say ‘oh it’s all true, he got us!’ are they?
Also it's not a journalistic article, no requirement to seek comment. As it is a book TPU could have used an injunction to prevent the publishing.
"Well they would say that wouldn’t they? They aren’t going to say ‘oh it’s all true, he got us!’ are they?"
I don't think they would make such a strong public denial otherwise that could leave it open for someone to an employment settlement document into the public arena for example. I would expect something more like: "We are investigating those claims as a result of the book…" or something less emphatic.
"As it is a book TPU could have used an injunction to prevent the publishing."
Perhaps. But that should be included within the planning for publishing the book. If the facts in the book are strong enough, I don't think any injunction attempt would stand for long. But the case would be much more compelling, especially if it had jumped the injunction hurdle and it had provided evidence to contradict any denials made.
Been a while since you have been around courts I see. Even I know better.
Temporary or interim injunctions can be obtained rapidly. To remove them will often take weeks or even months.
Just getting court dates to hear argument for its dissolution or continuance can easily take a week of two to get a court date – the courts don’t have spare dates in the short term. Often they are argued into standard injunctions with their typical lags of weeks just for providing evidence between parties.
Besides, there is a standard remedy. The litigants can take it to court for a full deliberation and restitution. I haven’t seen any signs of that so far, or even threats to do so.
Blustering when absolutely guilty has a long and sordid history. It is just about the most common tactic used by the guilty. Look at Cameron Slater, always blusters, invariably loses in court.
Another roblem is with these sort of people and their words is they are slippery.
"…never been accused of sexual harassment by a current or former staff member."
The accuser could be an intern or a volunteer and the above denial still be true.
Likewise Farrar:
"…but he did not access National's database.
"It's totally, 1000 percent wrong, absolutely wrong," Farrar said."
That doesn't mean he didn't have access through a third party.
From what I have read in the media, it was the settlement of an employment dispute. If that is true, then there should have been a settlement document and a money trail. And, an employment dispute would normally relate to an employee.
The problem for someone being accused in this way is that it is impossible to prove a negative. Because, no matter what is said in denial, there might be some secretly hidden settlement somewhere.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/taxpayers-union-denies-allegations-in-nicky-hager-book-dirty-work-that-lobby-group-faced-sexual-harassment-claim-from-staff-member/XKLPQQKE4ZAKPBHZC333GUPBP4/
"The Taxpayers’ Union settled an employment dispute involving allegations of sexual harassment against its executive director Jordan Williams, the latest book by journalist Nicky Hager alleges."
Actually none of any of those are required in any legal sense. A lot of settlements wind up as just being as insincere apology mandated by the HR who usually manage to lose or never document anything. A good chunk of complaints are from temporary interns and volunteers who aren’t on payrolls. And I haven’t seen anything about it being anything apart from a sexual harassment complaint.
perhaps you’d like to link to that?
I don't think I have made any such claim about it being more than sexual harrasment either. So, nothing to link to.
But, again, it is like trying to prove pink unicorns don't exist. How would you suggest refuting such a statement if in fact it isn't true?
Ah I see that you're only interested in diverting away from the bulk of the book and have instead chosen to focus on a just few lines and the response to those. I guess you don't want to confront the issue of who funds the TPU.
Responding to allegations – the same way that has been done for centuries, since duelling was made unlawful. Law or refutation, the latter can become legal as well.
If you feel that it has done harm, then you can use the law. In NZ that is either civil, ie the defamation act. Or whatever the HDCA Act is. In the latter there isn't digital component so it can't be that. And criminal libel and defamation was chopped out in 1993.
So far what I am seeing is refutation. Problem is that depends on a perception of a lack of real damage and a perception of credibility.
I suspect that there will be a perception of real damage to the Tobacco Protection Union, Jordan Williams, and David Farrar at various levels. I don't think that any could be perceived as being "turn the other check". The opposite would be what would be expected.
So credibility. Jordan Williams doesn't have much. Not only was he shown in Dirty Politics as being a kind of cling-on to Slater, but during the Colin Craig defamation case… Read "‘Who do you despise more?’ Jordan Williams and Colin Craig at the Supreme Court"
Craig responded effectively in kind after finding out who "Concerned Conservative" was and sued for defamation. Which on the facts was the case. But Jordan Williams gained a very murky reputation of having a very low standard of honesty, reliability, and generaly being a throughly immoral person who can't be trusted.
Certainly I view Jordan Williams opening his mouth as being a sign that he about to lie after I read my way through the judgements and some of what was available.
David Farrar, I also don't trust. This is guy who runs a blog that is dedicated to making mischief, has a polling company that doesn't like keeping to professional standards, and over the last 20 odd years that I've watched his on-line presence has been involved in almost every dirty underhanded manoeuvre outside that I have seen that involves tearing apart reputations of others. That includes some nasty shit right back at the start of this blog when he and Slater attacked my previous employer my DNS was still listed as a secondary for their company. All in the service of mischief and not caring at all about the effect on startup company, nor bothering to to simply ask. Just an unthinking arsehole.
Ruth Richardson, I have more time for. However I suspect that working with Jordan Williams would be an exercise in knowing where to look. He doesn't appear to me to be a person who'd actually care about organising and hiding a settlement or payment from his board.
As for the TPU…. Not exactly a savoury organisation based on their behaviour.
Of course there is a way to generate trust. Much of the book was about the financing of the TPU. Sharing their accounts for a forensic analysis would be a start. Instead, you'll notice that almost all of the response of the response is about a couple of lines amongst a reasonable sized book.
The problem for the TPU and the people concerned is in the text of the defamation act. Defamation goes both ways. It is perfectly possible for Hager to sue for defamation if they say anything about him that he can show was a lie. For instance saying that he is lying when he has witnesses who can state what they saw and told him. For the same reason he could win a case that was taken against him for the same reason, that he was took documented and sufficient steps to guard against deceit (like multiple witnesses) but was still deceived.
Knowing something about Hager and his methods, he would have documented everything in a well protected and highly encrypted form. The police and whoever they enlisted to try certainly didn't get into his archives while searching for Rawshark. While they weren't that sophisticated technically in 2014/5 and probably still are not, they do have access to people who probably are.
I suspect that that there won't be any reach for a legal examination. Mostly because I get the impression that the TPU is organisation where the relevant members hide secrets from each other, and don't trust that they have been told the truth about what has actually been going on. Courts are there to seek truth and have a nasty tendency to open stinking messes to public view. That is why I like reading judgements for my entertainment.
BTW: I've only met Hager once at a lecture for a few minutes (I seldom meet people in person). I have had some indirect communication via a common trusted contact. However he has been pretty clear about his methods, and I have read all available court documents while tracking Cameron Slater – generally, and over the Blomfield case and the fallout when Slater was hiring someone to hack my server. Hager is someone that I'm pretty sure I can trust – at least compared to Slater or Williams, or Farrar.
If Hager had revealed details of the text of his book to the "dirty work" people discussed in it, they would have prevented publication.
That is how those people work.
Why should any injunction attempt stand up if the "facts" are FACTS?
Because lawyers get involved and as David Lange observed, 'Half of them are always wrong'.
I would imagine doing that would be costly and time consuming. Who has the bigger purse strings? Which is kind of the whole point.
when Hager was asked at the press conference why it released before the election instead of after, he said it's a matter of public interest, and if he had published after, people would have said why didn't you tell us before we voted!
There's no value for the public interest in giving TPU etc a right of reply or interviewing them and then a long legal battle to publish the book.
I don’t really care much about Hager and what he has to say.
I am more interested in whether the way he does it actually has much effect.
For instance, I understand he returned all his source material after publishing? I can understand why given historical police raids. But, it also leaves him in a position where those he accuses can basically laugh at him and mock him because he can't put up evidence to back up his claims, unless those he returned the information to decide to release it themselves.
I care a little. Speaking of mocking people, how's ol' CEO Luxon getting on?
Whenever I start feeling sorry for (far-)right pollies and their supporters, this comment by Brooke van Velden – that champion of anti-slavery and pay equity – always brings me back down to spaceship Earth.
Wonder if van Velden, Seymour et al. believe their lives too are over-valued.
If you think Dirty Politics had no effect in NZ, go ahead and make the argument.
To answer your question, just think about what value you would place on a book exposing goings on in the Union movement written by the TPU based on alleged disgruntled sources without any attempt to put the allegations to those who are accused.
if a union was behaving like the TPU and someone wrote a book telling the public about it, that's a good thing.
But what kind of things do you think a union might be doing that would warrant such a book? So we can test your false equivalences.
No idea. But certain issues such as sexual harrasment are not limited by political ideology so far as I know.
But, if such a book were written without putting the information to union leaders or whatever, I wouldn't be interested in that either.
It isn't so much the political ideology. I get that, even though I don't agree with the ideology behind Hager in many respects. For me, it is more about whether the information is well balanced, presents arguments from both sides, grounds it well in evidence, and is fair in the way it approaches the issues and those who are the focus of it.
I will read and consider information that is grounded in that way, as should be evidenced by the way I try to behave here.
It is very easy to lap things up when it supports one's own perspective. But, a lot harder to stand back and criticise the information presented on the basis of its fundamentals.
You don't care much about Hager tsmithfield? (15.3.1.2.1.1) Thank god for Hager who is an outstanding thinker, doer and has True Grit. Many of us are just commenters – blindfolded in a fog, completely spaced out by it all. Someone like Hager is rare. Don't play Roundup on his green shoots for society.
Given the Taxpayers’ Union’s longstanding enthusiasm for aggressive political campaigning, there is something mildly amusing about seeing them object quite so strongly when the same sort of scrutiny is pointed in their direction.
But I think you're conflating two different things: process and substance.
I agree that Hager would make his case stronger by putting serious allegations to the people concerned before publication and including their responses. There are perfectly reasonable criticisms to make of that process. It gives the subjects an opportunity to respond, gives Hager an opportunity to test those responses against his evidence, and gives readers more information with which to assess the resulting claims.
But criticism of that process doesn't tell us whether the allegations themselves are true.
And a denial isn't “clear contrary evidence”. It's a denial.
Williams saying an allegation “came from absolutely nowhere”, Richardson saying the board “categorically denies” it, or Farrar saying something is “1000 percent wrong” establishes that the allegations are disputed. It doesn't, by itself, establish which account is factually correct.
Hager is making serious allegations, so the evidential burden is ultimately on him to substantiate them. Equally, though, if those allegations are as demonstrably false as his subjects are claiming, there is a fairly obvious way to rebut them: produce the evidence that demonstrates that.
That would be substantially more compelling than increasingly emphatic denials.
So I don't think we should turn “Hager should have given them a right of reply before publication” into “therefore their subsequent denials constitute clear evidence that his claims are wrong.” The first is an argument about journalistic process. The second is a claim about the underlying facts. They need to be assessed separately.
And while I understand why some people regard Hager's decision not to seek comment before publication as unfair, I have limited sympathy for the argument that public political campaigners should somehow be insulated from aggressive scrutiny. If you choose to make yourself a significant participant in public political debate, having your own conduct investigated and criticised rather comes with the territory.
"Equally, though, if those allegations are as demonstrably false as his subjects are claiming, there is a fairly obvious way to rebut them: produce the evidence that demonstrates that."
What evidence would you put forward to show there are no such things as "pink unicorns"? That is the problem with trying to prove a negative. I don't think they can do anymore than what they have other than to say there is no evidence such a thing ever happened.
I would suggest that, irrespective of whether we agree with Nicky Hager politically (and I certainly don't) we can and should grant him at least a minimal degree of professional rigour.
Presumably he believes the allegations he is publishing are true and that he has evidence capable of substantiating them. That doesn't mean they are true, and the burden remains on Hager to demonstrate them. But this isn't really analogous to somebody asserting the existence of pink unicorns. These are specific allegations about identifiable people, events and organisations which Hager claims are based on information supplied by sources.
And, to be fair, the Taxpayers’ Union itself is hardly famous for the meekness of its public rhetoric or an unwillingness to make serious allegations about other people. It has previously gone so far as to suggest that successful centre-right organisations tend to get “hacked by Nicky Hager’s friends”, and has associated his work with politically motivated hacking and break-ins.
Even in responding to this book, Williams has described it as an orchestrated political attack, accused Hager of character assassination and attributed political motives to him.
That's entirely their right. But I think it makes the “pink unicorn” comparison a little difficult to sustain. The people involved on both sides are quite prepared to make serious allegations about the conduct and motives of the other.
I'd apply the same standard to both of them. Hager needs to substantiate what he has alleged. Williams and the Taxpayers’ Union are entitled to deny it and produce whatever contrary evidence is available.
Until then, emphatic language from either side doesn't actually settle the factual question.
In effect, trying to prove a negative – notoriously a difficult challenge. [NB: I'm agnostic over whether there is actually evidence of an issue or not – since I haven't read the book, yet].
I would say that their only practical alternative would be to repeatedly call out Hager as a liar – and challenge him to prosecute them.
depends on the allegation
I'm assuming no-one here has read the book yet. It's all a bit abstract.
Mine's waiting for me to pick and pay – $35. So will be more informed soon.
If an allegation of sexual misconduct was made against you. What do you respond, apart from 'no there wasn't'? If you don't know who, when or what – how do you provide the evidence?
I haven't read teh book, so I don't know what the allegation is. Really hard to comment beyond that.
There is also a fairly substantial irony here that I find difficult to ignore.
Perhaps we should remember what the boundaries of political discourse have actually encompassed in recent years. We've had a political environment in which people have publicly threatened to hang, rape or otherwise kill a sitting Prime Minister, and in which false allegations about her partner became so widespread that the Police Commissioner took the extraordinary step of publicly confirming that he was not, and had never been, the subject of a police investigation.
Against that background, I'm struggling to summon much outrage over Nicky Hager publishing a book containing serious allegations about people who have themselves been enthusiastic participants in aggressive political campaigning.
Williams and the Taxpayers’ Union have spent years attacking the competence, integrity, motives and conduct of public figures. That's their right. Robust and sometimes unpleasant political speech is part of a free society.
But that principle doesn't suddenly become less attractive when you're the subject rather than the speaker.
Which leaves me with much the same reaction:
“Enthusiastic proponent of attack politics subjected to attack politics. Is outraged.”
None of that makes Hager's allegations true. He still has to substantiate them, and if he can't, they should be treated accordingly. But I have very limited sympathy for the proposition that these particular political campaigners have somehow been treated beyond the bounds of acceptable political discourse simply because somebody made serious allegations about them without politely asking them about it first.
lol, quite.
If hagar is lying it would be a dead cert that a worm like Williams would sue , so I await said law suits.
I think that Hager has made a tactical error in including allegations against Williams and Farrer, personally.
Its resulted in a whole lot of media coverage of the 'he's lying', no 'he is' variety. Which takes away from the serious political issue of how the TPU is influencing politics and who their paymasters are.
In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter if Williams is personally a slimeball – it's his political influence which is important.
I'd say those things are related, and I'm sure it's important to the women.
I just watched the Bridge interview with Hager. Hager is almost stilted, but he's thinking very carefully about what he says, hence the slow response. At one point when being questioned about his sources, Bridge says "your worried about getting sued now aren't you", to which Hager smiles a bit and replies "to be perfectly honest, I'm not at all worried about being sued, but my lawyers would say to me to be suitably careful in what I am saying…"
This is a very experienced investigative journalist very confident in what he has written.
https://youtu.be/lmz1QfnPQtw?t=295
another interesting thing about that interview is that Bridge isn't in rabid attack dog mode.
I wonder if it's at all possible that these nats that went to hagar are using hagar for their own purpose, tpu and act are one and the same imho, national won't want them getting to big.
Just a random thought for the day. Based on nothing more than the lint in my naval.
TPU are much more ACT than National.
I don't agree that they are necessarily related. People can have appalling politics and dodgy business ethics, but have entirely respectable personal behaviour; and vice versa.
Harger wouldn't have written a book about Williams if the sexual assault allegations were the whole point. He cares about political ethics, not personal ones. So it's a distraction from his main point.
Williams has operated in a particular milieu, that included gross sexism. Hard to see how that's not relevant to his politics. Those men are not doing that on the side as individuals, it's part of the kaupapa.
However the sexual conduct allegation isn't why Hager is writing the book – it's the political implications of the TPU.
Would Hager have written a book about James Gardner-Hopkins? I doubt it (and, in fact he hasn't).
Would Hager have been just as outraged about the TPU, if there were no allegations of sexual impropriety? Of course, he would.
Hager is interested in political 'crimes' – and the sexual assault aspect just distracts from his real argument.
Those attitudes, and actions, are entirely relevant to these arseholes, politics.
You only have to look at the Guru underpinning, ACT in particular, and the "Hard Right" in NZ, and the USA, to see the entitlement and attitude the "Lords of creation" have to "inferior beings". The non-rich, women etc.
Ayne Rand has a lot to answer for.
So, to use my relevant example. Do you think that Gardiner-Hopkins is also an ACT supporter? I highly doubt it.
Examples of misogynistic culture abound across the political spectrum.
If you (as in Hager) want NZ to be debating the political actions and influence of TPU – don't distract your audience.
When writing a book you hope will attract the attention of as wide an audience as possible for the purpose of drawing attention to a serious matter, an author would wisely include material that appeals to all sorts of readers, rather than restricting the scope to just one thread' "politics" or "foreign influence", for example. Many readers are drawn to more base matters and to avoid appealing only to the high-brow crowd, lurid details are a valid part of the mix. I don't believe trust-worthy people use such base expressions as Williams has reportedly done (I'm referring to the "we'd throw rocks" comment).
Just look at how much of the commentary here and in the media has been focused on the allegations. And therefore not debating the political influence of TPU. And imagine that being replicated across NZ.
Was that the desired outcome that Hager was looking for? I doubt it.
Is the political influence of the TPU a matter of debate? Doubt it; certainly no more than the NZ Initiative, and maybe even the FSU.
It would be even less compelling if he had. It probably wouldn’t have been launched until after the election because of injunctions. AS it is, those who feel that they were offended against can take it to court. Curiously to date I can’t see any threats of that.
The usual response to putting material to the accused in his books has been the same. Attempts to muzzle the publication that have invariably been subsequently overturned in court.
For instance Don Brash stopped the launch of Hollow Men and then lost.
Cameron Slater tried for a retroactive injunction for Dirty Politics, and lost on public interest grounds.
From memory there were a few other as well. Perhaps there is a fucking good reason fro not doing something as stupid as giving ammunition to the legal failures of pre-publishing injunctions.
You will note that, to date, none of the responses asserting innocence have actually offered any evidence that the accusations are untrue? In fact the wording of the responses is in itself quite revealing in its specificity.
Williams doesn't say that he hasn't sexually harrassed people employed at the TPU. For instance unpaid interns or volunteers wouldn't fit into his denial. Or he simply doesn't consider whatever he did was sexual harrassment, just as he didn't apparently consider that releasing information from a friend to Slater was a breach of trust.
Richardson didn't say that the TPU hadn't settled a sexual harassment suit. She said that they hadn't paid to settle. And if you can't figure out why there is difference between those two statements, then I'd suggest you may have a cognitive blockage somewhere, and trust that you can't understand the meaning of what I just said.
I haven’t looked at Farrar’s statement in detail apart from noting that it was also very carefully worded
Which is exactly my point too.
So far, all Williams et al appear to have produced is a great deal of indignation at the very idea that Hager would impugn their honour in public. None of the responses I've seen thus far have seriously engaged with the substance of the allegations themselves.
That doesn't make Hager's allegations true. He still has to substantiate them.
But “this is outrageous”, “this came from absolutely nowhere”, “we categorically deny this” and “this is 1000 percent wrong” are all variations on we deny the allegation. They aren't evidence from which the rest of us can determine what actually happened.
And given the Taxpayers’ Union's own willingness over the years to make some fairly serious allegations about Hager and others, I'm not especially persuaded by the sudden outbreak of pearl-clutching over the impropriety of making serious public allegations.
Worse, the reporting so far doesn't mention anything that might substantiate the allegations. If the book consists of "I spoke to multiple people who told me X, Y and Z," it's basically gossip. Why would anyone pay good money for that and why would the targets of the gossip make any response beyond "It's untrue"? Claims presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Your problem is that you don’t have any credibility as commenting in good faith about the book given your two disparaging comments from before the book launch:
https://thestandard.nz/hagers-next-book/#comment-2073136
https://thestandard.nz/hagers-next-book/#comment-2073157
Your subsequent cherry-picking confirms your negative bias towards the book’s substance.
The funny part of all this is the Prime Minister pretending he hasn't heard of Hager.
Luxy old chap, we expect you to lie but for goodness' sake try and make your lies halfway believable! Put some effort in.
Very telling that his first instinct is to lie,
Hager in his new book gets stuck into both the TU (especially Farrar and Williams) and the MSM (especially RadioNZ):
"The most worrying aspect of having a lobby group in charge of the country's political polling is that there is no transparency about who is paying for the polls and the fact that the National Party has links to everyone concerned,…"
Hager also criticised the media's role, suggesting it contributed to poor transparency.
"Despite all their undeclared political machinations, both Farrar and Williams are often interviewed uncritically in the mainstream media – far more often than most genuinely independent experts and commentators.
"At the time of writing, for instance, Radio New Zealand had interviewed Farrar about 600 times since 2007, an astonishing amount of coverage considering that he is one of the least independent people available. He is often introduced with labels such as 'polling company maestro', while Williams is given labels such as 'anti-waste campaigner'. It is lazy journalism."
Once a pos always a pos.
h/t mountain tui
https://insightnz.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/leaked-jordan-williams-and-slater-conversations-part-one/
https://insightnz.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/leaked-jordan-williams-and-slater-conversations-part-two/
https://insightnz.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/leaked-jordan-williams-and-slater-conversations-part-three/
https://insightnz.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/leaked-jordan-williams-and-slater-conversations-part-four/
https://insightnz.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/leaked-jordan-williams-and-slater-conversations-part-five/
https://insightnz.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/leaked-jordan-williams-and-slater-conversations-part-six/
https://insightnz.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/slater-and-williams-the-final-part-7/
Disgusting:
Surely men who say this about women would never sexually harass anyone /s
Both need to be reminded they came out of a cunt
Ay. Very likely. They have been around for a long time! And talked about with zest.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/cunt
This is what's bothering me. I bought Dirty Politics when it came out, and no-one who reads it can be left in any doubt about the kind of men Slater and Williams are. And yet, only Slater seems to have suffered from it. Williams is apparently still welcome on boards, still featured in news reporting etc as though none of us had read the damn book.
By and large it is because the MSM don't really care. Williams has power bestowed on him by National and ACT. The MSM are happy to be of service to them in the hope more crumbs will flow their way?
Two Dirty Work-related articles in The Spinoff today, and a good comment/question.
I think this type of stuff is most effective when there is a gotcha moment.
So, the author publishes the material, waits for the denial to come, then puts out the evidence that sinks the denial and the credibility of the person making the denial.
This possibility tends to make the targets much more cautious in what they say due to this possibility.
The fact that Williams and Farrar have come out so emphatically in their denial suggests they aren't in the slightest bit worried in that respect. It will be interesting to see if Hager puts anything up in response other than rhetoric.
This type of denial will be most effective in selling more copies of Dirty Work
Still, as denialists go, Williams and Farrar aren't on the same level as CEO Luxon.
Maybe our CEO knows who Hager is now. Then again, maybe not – who knows?
https://thestandard.nz/daily-review-27-05-2026/#comment-2063304
https://thestandard.nz/unmasking-the-taxpayers-union-as-the-tobacco-protection-union/
One wonders if Luxon knows who Jim Anderton was. On this evidence, he probably doesn't.
It probably is connected with AirNZ why Luxon has a few spaces in his memory – it will result from the chemtrails causing an insidious decline in function.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2609/S00200/statement-from-nicky-hager-on-the-taxpayers-unions-denial-of-one-of-the-claims-made-in-the-dirty-work.htm
Hager also puts Ruth Richardson nicely in her place.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2609/S00200/statement-from-nicky-hager-on-the-taxpayers-unions-denial-of-one-of-the-claims-made-in-the-dirty-work.htm