Dirty Work was meant to be Nicky Hager’s next investigative work—a closer look at New Zealand’s political scene, this time focusing on the Taxpayers’ Union and its leader, Jordan Williams. However, the book’s publication has sparked a legal debate, forcing Hager to confront a standard he himself championed years earlier in a courtroom.
The controversy centers on a claim in Dirty Work that the Taxpayers’ Union paid a confidential settlement after workplace harassment allegations against Williams. The union, Williams, and co-founder David Farrar have denied the accusation as false. Hager maintains his reporting relied on multiple sources with direct knowledge of the matter. Yet his approach now conflicts with the principles he defended in a 2013 defamation trial.
That trial involved The Hunt, a 2011 book co-authored by investigative journalist Ian Wishart and George London. Wishart, who testified in his own defense, called Hager as an expert witness on journalistic standards. During cross-examination, Hager outlined strict requirements for publishing serious allegations, particularly those involving sexual misconduct.
He stated, “If I’m not absolutely sure of something, I don’t publish it.” Wishart’s outline of the evidence on the point saw Hager establishing the ‘publication threshold’ in these terms: “A woman or a man making allegations of those kinds after however long, as the only source, would not be enough for me to even dream of publishing it.” Hager acknowledged that a single source could be sufficient if credible and backed by solid physical or documentary evidence, but he stressed that uncorroborated single-source claims generally fall short of the threshold required for publishing damaging personal allegations.
The Hager Test and its legal legacy
Hager’s testimony became known as the Hager Test, setting a benchmark for how serious allegations should be verified before publication. Initially, a jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Lindsay Smallbone, awarding damages for defamation. But the verdict was overturned after an independent witness confirmed key parts of the allegations, leading to a retrial. Smallbone’s appeals ultimately failed, with the Supreme Court rejecting further review in 2015.
Wishart, who has extensive experience in investigative journalism, has now directed that testimony back at Hager. In Dirty Work, Hager did not notify Williams or the Taxpayers’ Union about the settlement claim before publication—a departure from the standard he had previously defended. Instead, he cited multiple sources with direct knowledge, though none were identified by name.
Hager has argued that pre-notification could lead to legal suppression or injunctions before the public sees the work. Yet the inconsistency remains: the same journalist who insisted on rigorous corroboration in court now faces questions about whether his own reporting meets the same standard. The Taxpayers’ Union has publicly demanded that Hager disclose the underlying documentation, accusing him of relying on hearsay rather than verifiable evidence.
Anonymous sources spark credibility crisis
Hager’s 2013 testimony made clear that verifying serious allegations generally required more than a single source, and that corroborating evidence and direct engagement with the subject were important. In Dirty Work, however, his reliance on “multiple sources with direct knowledge” does not include named individuals or publicly disclosed verifiable documentation. The Taxpayers’ Union has dismissed the settlement claim as “demonstrably false,” arguing that Hager’s sources remain anonymous, leaving no paper trail or independent verification. Legal experts note that while anonymous sourcing is common in investigative journalism, it faces heightened scrutiny when allegations carry legal and reputational weight.
The absence of leaked documents or internal records in Dirty Work sets it apart from some of Hager’s earlier works, such as The Hollow Men and Dirty Politics. In The Hollow Men and Dirty Politics, he relied on batches of leaked files that provided direct evidence of wrongdoing. By contrast, Dirty Work appears to depend more on oral accounts, a shift that Wishart argues weakens its evidentiary foundation. The Taxpayers’ Union has demanded access to any underlying agreements or communications cited in the book, framing the request as a test of transparency.
