MediaSeptember 24, 2024

Matthew Hooton, Don Brash and the defamation drama behind a deleted podcast

Founder

An astonishing monologue from the centre right commentator electrified audiences – then Don Brash called in the lawyers. Now updated with the text of Hooton’s apology at the foot.

The video lasts a little over four minutes, part of an episode of The Working Group politics podcast, which invites those with polarised views to debate them live. Matthew Hooton, the former National Party staffer turned lobbyist and commentator, sits casually, one arm draped across the back of a black office chair. He shifts and straightens in his seat, and commences a political tirade for the ages, targeted squarely at former National Party leader Don Brash, and his advocacy group Hobson’s Pledge.

“Hobson stuttered somehow to the Māoris when he was signing [Te Tiriti],” says Hooton, referencing the “pledge” Brash’s group is named for. “He said in te reo, ‘we are all one people’, apparently. Now I don’t know whether Hobson said that or not, but it’s not in the text, and so it seems quite pathetic.”

Hooton is clearly wound up, gesticulating with force as he delivers a monologue railing against his former colleague. It goes on, and on, rising in fury, a trickle becoming a torrent which will not be tamed or diverted. At one point co-host Damien Grant attempts to intervene, and gets called a “dickhead” for his troubles.

Hooton claims that he, in his former role within the party, installed Brash as leader of National, and refers to Brash’s infamous Ōrewa speech as “despicably racist”, before rounding into the core of his thesis. “He is a fundamentally bad person,” Hooton says of Brash. “He’s divided this country for no apparent reason, despite being certainly intelligent enough to know the things that he says are not true.”

Hooton goes on to say that “all it has ever been about is for a group of people to try and position [Māori] people as radicals and the ‘other’, and somehow dangerous to the mainstream. And that has always been a lie.” He concludes by suggesting Brash has knowingly lied about his own views – a very serious allegation. That’s what made the video so powerful. And where the trouble started.

Matthew Hooton (Photo: Tina Tiller / The Spinoff)

Thousands have viewed the clip, and it has been widely circulated on social media in the month since its publication, with many who might not usually be fans of Hooton’s perspectives, celebrating its sentiment. However after racking up almost 10,000 views on YouTube in 48 hours, it vanished from The Working Group podcast’s official channels and social feeds.

This is because Brash considered the implication that he was insincere in his beliefs highly defamatory, and has “retained specialist counsel”, according to his lawyer, former Act MP Stephen Franks. A letter laying out Brash’s position was sent to Hooton and The Working Group.

When contacted by The Spinoff, Brash made it clear that his defamation claim concerned only one aspect of Hooton’s comments. “I mean calling someone a racist these days is almost fashionable. It’s become so common. I do resent that, and deeply resent that, but when he claims that I was promoting a view which I simply don’t agree with, don’t believe in myself – I mean, that is quite preposterous.”

A podcast comfortable causing offence

It’s not surprising that the incident happened on The Working Group. The podcast is the lovechild of staunch old school leftist and Daily Blog editor Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury and the libertarian liquidator and Stuff columnist Damien Grant. It has become popular in recent years due to its bombastic style and embrace of a combative argument across the political aisle, with a broad cross-section of views represented in guests ranging from Chris Hipkins and Simon Wilson to Jordan Williams and Leo Molloy. Its intro jokes about “avoiding defamation” – something it may not have lived up to in the episode from late August.

Along with pulling the recording, the letter seems to have already prompted some level of retreat from Hooton, according to sources familiar with the situation. That may not be enough to mollify Brash. “Notwithstanding an apology being suggested by Matthew Hooton,” wrote Franks, “proceedings are likely to ensue.” When approached, Hooton said via text “it’s best not to inflame or aggravate matters, I think” and refused to comment further. Sources familiar with the situation suggest he intends to apologise for the comments during this evening’s recording of The Working Group.

Brash told The Spinoff in a pair of interviews that his legal issue was solely with Hooton’s persistent attacks on his integrity. “He didn’t suggest I was wrong. He suggested I was lying, and knew I was lying.” Despite his persistent positioning as a champion of free speech and opponent of cancel culture, Brash considered that aspect of the podcast a bridge too far.

“I’m in favour of freedom of speech, but it’s one thing to believe in freedom of speech, another thing to accuse someone of flat out lying. That’s what Hooton has done… I don’t think that’s inconsistent with a belief in freedom of speech.”

What we can and can’t say

Reporting on defamation is complicated within New Zealand, as the law can consider reporting on claims to be repeating them, and therefore engaging in defamation too. In an email to The Spinoff, Franks said “it would be inadvisable for the Spinoff to repeat the defamatory comments”. However, The Spinoff specifically asked Brash for permission to repeat the claims in the context of our reporting, and he agreed, on the basis that we underline the fact that Brash forcefully rejects Hooton’s statements about the sincerity of his beliefs.

Brash is not the only object of Hooton’s derision in the fateful episode – he expands the scope to include the Act Party, a former client of Hooton’s, and its Treaty Principles Bill. “David Seymour cannot possibly believe that his racist Treaty Principles Bill reflects in any way whatsoever either the texts or the case law over the Treaty of Waitangi. He isn’t that stupid,” Hooton says on the podcast. “He’s doing it to inflame hatred in New Zealand.”

When contacted by The Spinoff, Seymour said he had not heard Hooton’s comment, but after it was relayed to him, confirmed he had no interest in joining Brash in any defamation proceeding (and, indeed, Seymour intends to appear on The Working Group again soon). “I always take Matthew with a large grain of salt. On his best day, he’s scintillatingly brilliant. And then there’s the days when he’s getting sued by Steven Joyce, or is adamant Todd Muller will be the best prime minister New Zealand has ever had. The trick with Matthew is to take the gems for their considerable worth, and be able to tell when he’s having one of his off days.”

‘Media is under threat. Help save The Spinoff with an ongoing commitment to support our work.’

Duncan Greive
— Founder

As Seymour said, this incident is not Hooton’s first time testing the limits of defamation law. In 2018 he wrote a column for the National Business Review concerning former National finance minister Steven Joyce, before ultimately apologising for it as part of a settlement in which he agreed to pay Joyce’s legal fees. The NBR did not concede, and the saga dragged on for years, ultimately leading to a judgement in the publication’s favour.

The divide there ran deep, but so does the ill feeling between Brash and Hooton. Based on Franks’ statements, there’s nothing to suggest this episode is likely to end with an apology. It reveals a vast rift between two major figures within rightwing politics, and suggests that there is no consensus about the persistent campaign against the treaty and other gains for te ao Māori within some parts of the right. These two one-time collaborators are now bitterly divided, and while the podcast is gone, the enmity lingers.

Update, 7.30pm, September 24: an apology, read by Martyn Bradbury on The Working Group and livestreamed on its YouTube channel:

Four weeks ago on The Working Group, Matthew made certain comments about Dr Brash. These comments were made in discussions with Damien and others about the role of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand, the foreshore and seabed issue, and the advocacy group Hobson’s Pledge. In his comments, Matthew accused Dr Brash of dishonesty and of advocating his views solely to drive racial division in New Zealand.

Matthew accepts that in fact Dr Brash holds those views sincerely and not for the reasons Matthew gave.

Matthew does not agree with Dr Brash’s position on the Treaty and related matters. His remarks came as part of a vigorous debate on a subject that he is particularly passionate about – as are many New Zealanders, including Dr Brash. But Matthew accepts he was not justified in making – and sincerely apologises for – those particular statements, which he unreservedly retracts.

_______

Keep going!

Philip Polkinghorne was found not guilty of murdering his wife, Pauline Hanna, on Monday.

SocietySeptember 23, 2024

Not guilty: At the end of the Polkinghorne trial, what have we learned?

Lyric Waiwiri-Smith

Politics reporter

Philip Polkinghorne was found not guilty of murdering his wife, Pauline Hanna, on Monday.

The eight-week media circus of the Philip Polkinghorne trial ends with a not guilty verdict. Lyric Waiwiri-Smith reports from the High Court.

After eight weeks, the verdict comes in just past 2pm: former eye surgeon Philip Polkinghorne is not guilty of murdering his wife, Pauline Hanna. After 10 hours of deliberations across two days, her death will now be remembered as a kind of paradox – the jury did not convict him of murder, but most of them also believe she did not commit suicide – and Polkinghorne may never live a normal life again.

It was a hush, then a weeping when the verdict was called. Those in the court at the time say the eye surgeon was stone-faced as his innocence was announced, and the emotions washed over the public seats where the families sat like a “whoosh”. There were tears from both families in a moment that seemed to catch many off guard – it all seemed to happen so fast.

Just under 40 journalists, many from the same outlet, are waiting outside the Auckland High Court by 2.30pm on Monday afternoon. Armed with cameras, microphones and notebooks full of questions that wouldn’t be answered, they build a barricade to the entrance of the high court, while a crowd of onlookers are lining up along the sidewalk to watch the scrum.

Crown solicitor Alysha McClintock is one of the first to leave the building. She fields questions from the reporters: she respects the jury’s decision, Hanna’s death is a tragedy, and no, the Crown has no right of appeal.

Polkinghorne exits next, and reads a statement from his phone to the crowd of journalists: “Today’s outcome is a huge turning point in our lives,” he says, checking his notes again, “but now we can grieve, and let Pauline rest in peace, and that is the best gift we can give her.” He leaves arm-in-arm with his sister, moving through the mob.

Philip Polkinghorne is questioned by media outside the Auckland High Court.

The “there will be no more questions” line, voiced by Polkinghorne’s lawyer, is always more of a challenge than a statement to a journalist. Part of the media scrum moves with him, the reporters keeping in pace to ask him questions with their microphone to their face, and camera people running ahead to get the front-on shot of Polkinghorne that will grace the splash.

The walk from the entrance of the high court to Newman Hall on Waterloo Quadrant only takes less than two minutes, if you’re walking at a moderate pace. Through purple flowers in bloom hanging over arches, past the old Courtville apartment building, the short walk is a particularly beautiful one, especially on a sunny day such as this. For Polkinghorne and his crowd of equally expressionless lawyers, dodging the questions and cameras, those two minutes must have felt unbearably long.

After eight weeks of non-stop Polkinghorne news, the coverage will still take time to ease.

The crowd gives up after Polkinghorne makes it past Newman Hall – he hasn’t answered any questions, and they got the visuals they need, so they head on back to the high court. In the wait before the next appearances, voice overs are recorded and stories are updated on iPhones.

Hanna’s family appears, carrying a portrait of their late loved one and wearing white ribbon pins, to tell the media they are disappointed in the decision. They go back into the high court, maybe to leave out of a more private door, and finally into a private life.

The media crowd begins to thin out, those left greeting Hanna’s close friend, Pheasant Riordan, who earlier in the trail reenacted a strangling she said Hanna had experienced at the hands of her husband. It was a “crap decision”, she says, “she’s an amazing lady, and she didn’t deserve this end.” She hugs journalist Steve Braunias, who has written 32 stories alone on the Polkinghorne trial, before leaving hand-in-hand with her husband to a future that hopefully provides closure.

Pauline Hanna’s family speaks to media following the Polkinghorne verdict.

Perhaps the last whodunnit case to grip the nation so fiercely was the murder of Scott Guy, a two-year media spectacle that ended in the acquittal of his brother-in-law, Ewen Macdonald. Maybe in 10 years’ time, another murder case with the same kind of elements that made Polkinghorne’s great fodder – the complicated family ties, the scandal, the unknowable mystery of it all – will come around, and reporters will be saying there’s been nothing like it since Polkinghorne.

The media crowd thins out even more, heading back to the office to package something together for the 6pm bulletins or to write a reflection piece to go out at 5am. Some of them have been here the whole trial, diligently updating live blogs with all the details ad nauseam in the name of public transparency. Others are here to give their colleagues a hand in the news sharing, making sure they’ve covered the audio, print, digital and visual media channels to get the story out.

The end of the Polkinghorne trial won’t mean the end of media coverage – Stuff released an interview with his mistress Madison Ashton less than an hour after the verdict came through, and the Herald soon followed. The not guilty verdict will be dissected in think pieces, and Braunias might write another 32 articles – especially as Polkinghorne will be heading back to court in November on methamphetamine charges.

Many people abstain from reading the news because it’s too “depressing”. Yet the picture painted of the Polkinghorne trail through the headlines has often been less than reflective of the upsetting details shared over the last eight weeks: “Most scandalous trial of the century”, “Polkinghorne ‘consumed by sex’”, “Polkinghorne goes shopping at the sex supermarket”, to name a few.

The story within the trial is incredibly upsetting, but the spectacle of scandal may have been enough to draw many of us into it. Like the coverage of the Lauren Dickason trial, it’s almost too ugly to look away, and we’re given access to every tidbit heard by the court. A mission to get the full story can be a slippery slope to becoming consumed by it.

Despite his not guilty verdict, the name Philip Polkinghorne may now forever hang in New Zealand’s hall of infamy, alongside David Bain and Mark Lundy. Maybe we’ll let him fade into obscurity, until a true crime podcast or a kind-of exposé revealing his new life in Cambridge brings him back into the public psyche. Hopefully one name remembered as well as his, with less vulturism, is Pauline Hanna’s.