In defence of Jordan Williams

In brief

• Nicky Hager’s allegations against Jordan Williams don’t even warrant a response at this point.
  • He has presented zero evidence, is hardly revered as a reliable source, and is obviously politically at odds. 
    • Heather du Plessis-Allan chose to press Williams hard, but refusing to draft a broad waiver on live radio neither proves nor suggests anything; You do not have to like Jordan Williams or support the Taxpayers' Union to recognise a lack of evidence. On Heather du Plessis-Allan's Newstalk ZB programme on 23 September, a denied sexual harassment allegation became a test of whether Williams would waive confidentiality or sue?The allegation could be true. We have no idea. It could also be true that there are countless parallel universes. The rule we work with, and the law does too, is that an allegation has to be proven. Only after credible evidence is presented does it even warrant a response. And the more “out there” the allegation, the stronger the evidence required. We do not work for Williams, and this article does not purport to comment on his innocence or guilt. The only question we’re asking is did the interview logic actually prove anything?The allegation itself, as well as some responses, has already been widely reported. In Dirty Work: The Taxpayers' Union and New Zealand's Hard Right, Nicky Hager alleges that the board paid to settle employment disputes, including "at least one sexual harassment case against Williams". Williams denies it. Ruth Richardson says the board's checks support that denial. Hager says he had solid sources. Those competing accounts do not, by themselves, resolve the dispute. Du Plessis-Allan pressed Williams hard. But the refusal to agree to things that many lawyers would advise against, with no advance warning, on live radio, is not a test of innocence or guilt. It is more of a test if you are a fool.Here are three problems with Du Plessis-Allan’s approach.1. The waiver demand is not a test of truthDu Plessis-Allan pushed Williams to say he would waive any confidentiality around a possible sexual harassment claim. Williams kept saying there was nothing to waive. Her point was easy to understand. If no agreement exists, why not just say so? And if an agreement does exist, a waiver might let evidence come out.You can decide whether that is a fair question, but it is certainly not proof.Refusing to say the exact words does not prove there was an NDA. It does not prove there was a complainant. It does not prove harassment happened.There may also be good legal reasons not to make a broad promise on live radio. A waiver is not just a magic phrase. It can affect other people, private employment matters, the organisation, lawyers and legal privilege. Williams is reportedly legally trained, so caution is not automatically suspicious.You do not casually create legal permissions around an undefined universe of people, documents, allegations, employers, staff, contractors, privacy rights, privilege, and confidential employment matters while being cross-examined on air. Live radio is not the place to draft a legal release.And even if Williams had said the words, that still would not prove he was innocent. A guilty person could offer a waiver too.You cannot prove an NDA exists by demanding that someone waive it.The interview confused a statement that might have reassured the public with actual evidence.2. The interview shifts the burden of proofDu Plessis-Allan also pressed Williams on how listeners could know the alleged settlement did not exist.Again, you can be the judge of whether that is a fair question. But it still puts the problem the wrong way around.The person making an allegation has to support it. The accused person does not prove the allegation by failing to answer in the exact way an interviewer wants.The same problem came up again over defamation. Williams said he was taking legal advice and had been speaking with lawyers. Later, on The Huddle, du Plessis-Allan suggested that if the claim was not true, he should sue. But that is not a test of truth either.An innocent person might not sue because a court case would cost too much, take too long, or drag the allegation through the media for months. It is also relevant whether the courts award reasonable amounts for these things and whether Hager even has any money. A guilty person might sue anyway to intimidate critics or protect his reputation. So the decision to sue, or not sue, does not tell us what happened.The point is that a willingness to launch litigation is not evidence. A radio interview is not evidence. An awkward answer is not evidence.Williams may have handled the interview badly. He may have sounded evasive to some listeners. But that does not make the allegation stronger.If denial is treated as suspicious, caution is treated as suspicious, and not suing is treated as suspicious, then the accused person cannot win. That is more like a set-up for a witch hunt than an investigation.3. The actual allegation still needs actual evidenceThere are three different questions here.Did the alleged harassment happen? Did someone make a complaint? Was money paid to settle it? Those questions are related, but they are not the same.A complaint would show that someone made an allegation. A settlement would show that a dispute was resolved on particular terms. Neither would automatically prove harassment occurred.The proper question is not whether Williams used the perfect words under pressure. It is what evidence exists for the allegation.Re-published from the Centrist with permissionOriginal article at The Centrist