Summarised by Centrist
Ian Wishart is questioning whether Nicky Hager applied the same publication standards in his new book, Dirty Work, that he advocated when giving evidence against Wishart in a 2013 defamation trial.
In a Facebook post, Wishart links Hager’s reported claim about a sexual harassment settlement involving a Taxpayers’ Union executive to his earlier insistence that sexual allegations required supporting evidence before publication.
The earlier case concerned The Hunt, which Wishart co-wrote about a mother, Paulette, whose children disappeared after being abducted. Her former husband, Lindsay Smallbone, sued over the book’s portrayal of him.
Hager appeared as an expert witness for Smallbone. According to the courtroom exchanges reproduced by Wishart, Hager acknowledged he had not read the whole book and was addressing principles governing publication.
Wishart challenged how a woman alleging abuse within marriage could obtain corroboration: “How many independent witnesses to sexual abuse or rape within marriage are there usually?”
Hager distinguished believing a complainant from publishing allegations, warning: “you can victimise in creating justice by having the wrong story.”
Wishart argues that approach left women unable to tell their stories where there were no other witnesses or available avenues for prosecution. He says further evidence emerged after the jury awarded Smallbone $270,000: “Two weeks after the verdict, another of Smallbone’s exes made contact to confirm she too had been raped by him.” Wishart says that evidence led to the verdicts being set aside.
He now asks whether Hager adequately substantiated the settlement claim, which Wishart says the union and executive deny.
“But never fear, Hager surely must have taken his own advice,” Wishart writes. “He must certainly have a copy of the ‘settlement’ agreement, right?”
Re-published from the Centrist with permission
