Don Brash v Matthew Hooton defamation case: High Court hears Brash wants ‘unreserved apology'
Brash has said Hooton's comments suggested he was dishonest, lacking in integrity and corrupt.
But Dickey told Associate Judge Grant Brittain, KC, that the remarks were not as offensive as suggested and Hooton had already apologised.
The court heard any rewards in the case would be nominal, not substantial.
Dickey said at one point Brash seemed to suggest 'iwi' were paying Hooton, which was totally unfounded.
Brash's views on the Treaty of Waitangi and race relations were largely what Hooton's monologue was about.
Specialist defamation lawyers Peter McKnight and Ali Romanos appeared for Brash.
Romanos said the remarks were serious because Hooton was not 'some random person on Reddit' but an established figure with gravitas.
Romanos said Brash wanted an unreserved apology from Hooton.
He said some 3500 people might have heard the initial podcast monologue, which was later circulated to more people on social media.
McKnight said it was not right to strike out a case with 'very serious matters alleged'.
He argued the case should go to trial.
McKnight asked for today's strike-out application to be dismissed and costs awarded.
Associate Judge Brittain reserved his decision but indicated a judgment on the strike-out application would likely be made in about a fortnight.
Hooton was not in the courtroom today.
Brash was, but he declined to comment afterwards.
Brash, apart from also being a former Reserve Bank Governor, leads the Hobson's Pledge lobby group.
Hooton is a columnist for the Business Herald and has worked in political and corporate communications and strategy for clients including the National Party.
John Weekes is a business journalist covering aviation and court. He has previously covered consumer affairs, crime, politics and court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
17 hours ago
- Newsroom
The young need state support just as much as the old
In a recent column in the NZ Herald, Mathew Hooton said that if superannuation can't be cut, then wage subsidies should be. As 'welfare costs are exploding' and there is no political will to carve 20 percent off the universal pension, he continued, we must stop providing families with child-related tax credits and accommodation assistance, which he describes as 'wage subsidies'. While this view may resonate with some, all developed countries have variants on state policies like Working for Families to support children, and a version of New Zealand Superannuation to support the old. Typically and confusingly it is often argued that Working for Families is either 'corporate welfare' (letting businesses get away with not paying workers enough for their families to live on), or 'communism by stealth' that puts 'the whole population on welfare'. By similar logic it could be argued that NZ Super puts everyone on welfare at 65 or is a form of corporate welfare because wages should be high enough so people can save for a pension for themselves. Mid-last century, in a world long gone, wages were set by arbitration to ensure that one full-time male breadwinner earned enough to support a 'typical' family with a wife at home, and several children. Even so, tax breaks and a family benefit for children were also necessary. In the 21st century we have very different family structures including two-earner families. It is ludicrous to expect employers to meet the needs of both low-income adults and their children. For example, a very low-wage worker with four children currently receives an extra $610 per week from Working for Families. If cut completely, the net wage would have to rise by around $32,000 a year to make up for it, by Hooton's logic. The increase in the gross wage rate would cripple employers, be too much for workers without children, and not enough for larger families. There is the argument that by wiping Working for Families, the money saved be given back in tax relief to workers. That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. If families were to be compensated, it would require a complex package of abating tax credits. Oh, but isn't that that what Working for Families currently is? It all becomes so circular. One million superannuitants are collectively paid $20b after tax each year. Around one million children are given just $3.3b in Working for Families each year. You read that right. Each year around one million superannuitants are paid around six times more than one million children through Working for Families. But it is true that Working for Families is badly designed and does not meet the main goal of child poverty prevention. It doesn't reward paid work, as it is intended to. It is in desperate need of reform. It's often said that Working for Families is all Labour's fault, but it did not magically come into being fully formed under the Helen Clark Government in 2004. The universal weekly family benefit and tax breaks for families in the 1950s evolved by the 70s and 80s to become a complex mix of family benefit and different family tax credits. In 1991 the National Party folded the universal family benefit into the targeted tax credits to become one weekly targeted payment per child called Family Support. There were further changes under National in the mid-1990s, and rewarding paid work became elevated as a fundamental principle. All that the Clark government did in 2004 was to change the name to Working for Families, then build on and expand the existing complex structure, with even more emphasis on paid work as a criterion. Then, the Ardern government introduced an additional significant payment, called Best Start, for children under three years old, universal for the first year. As a policy, Working for Families is a mess. In contrast NZ Super is a simple, unconditional universal payment indexed to wages. It is easy to access and, until the housing crisis, has been enough to prevent poverty in old age. It is a basic income floor that does not disincentivise paid work. It has a very gentle income test though the tax system, so that the very highest income earners still get around three quarters of a pension paid when there is no additional income. The extra assistance for families to meet the basic income needs of their children is a very different story. Working for Families is tightly targeted and assists only children of low- and middle-income parents. Moreover, the full payment is conditional on parents having paid work and receiving no core benefit or part benefit. These conditions result in 200,000 children in the worst-off families being excluded from around $5000 per year, or more for larger families. With this division between deserving and undeserving children it's no wonder child poverty is so intractable. Working for Families payments are not annually indexed and are increased only when cumulative inflation exceeds 5 percent. There is no wage link as for NZ Super. Furthermore, payments are subject to a draconian clawback equivalent to an extra tax of 27 percent from a very low base of joint parental income. That threshold will be lifted marginally next year to $44,900, but to pay for it, the rate of abatement rises from 27 percent to 27.5 percent and Best Start becomes income-tested. This very 'tight targeting' ensures child poverty persists for many families in paid work. The overlap of tax, Working for Families clawbacks, student loan repayments and loss of accommodation assistance, and now Best Start clawbacks, confirms for too many, that extra work effort does not lift them out of poverty. Children are invisible: that is the problem. Fundamentally we need to understand that low-income wages, benefits, and paid parental leave are for the income needs of adults, but children also have income needs. I would argue that rather than take more from children we take more from the top end of NZ Super through the tax system and direct the revenue for fixing not just Working for Families but also the other failing welfare measures such as the accommodation supplement, benefits and disability support. We do want to grow the economy but should not be done at the expense of the wellbeing of both our current and future workforce.
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Wide Reserve Bank restructure to follow executive and funding changes
The Reserve Bank has already been restructuring its executive team, with a number of its higher ups departing, and the latest news of a wider restructure comes after a major funding cut. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone A broad restructuring is on the cards at the Reserve Bank, less than two months after the government announced it would cut its budget . RBNZ said it would consult with staff about potential "broader organisational changes" later this month, but refused to provide additional details. RNZ understands certain backroom functions were being reviewed, as the central bank faced a 25 percent cut to its budget in the new financial year. It comes amid a restructure of its executive leadership team, with the departure of another assistant governor. It said Sarah Owen had left the RBNZ, following the earlier departures of Kate Kolich, Greg Smith, Nigel Prince and Simone Robbers. In May, the RBNZ said it would halve its executive leadership (excluding the governor) to four. After slimming down the executive, it said the leadership team below the executive also faced changes. The new leadership structure would come into place from 16 June, and would be made up of 20 director roles under four groups - financial stability, money, enterprise services and operations. "This is a critical time for Te Pūtea Matua (RBNZ), and the changes we're making are more than just structural," governor Christian Hawkesby said. "We want to ensure that we're match-fit for the changing environment and context we're operating in," he said. However, the RBNZ was tight-lipped about the broader organisational restructure. "We will soon be going into consultation with our staff as part of this next phase," a spokesperson said. "Out of care for our people, we have no further details to share externally at this time." The RBNZ has faced a period of uncertainty in recent months, with the reduction in government funding arriving after the abrupt departure of former governor Adrian Orr. It has previously faced criticism over a sharp increase in staff numbers, with the number of full-time equivalent employees increasing from 255 in 2018 to 641 in September 2024. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Don Brash v Matthew Hooton defamation case: High Court hears Brash wants ‘unreserved apology'
Brash has said Hooton's comments suggested he was dishonest, lacking in integrity and corrupt. But Dickey told Associate Judge Grant Brittain, KC, that the remarks were not as offensive as suggested and Hooton had already apologised. The court heard any rewards in the case would be nominal, not substantial. Dickey said at one point Brash seemed to suggest 'iwi' were paying Hooton, which was totally unfounded. Brash's views on the Treaty of Waitangi and race relations were largely what Hooton's monologue was about. Specialist defamation lawyers Peter McKnight and Ali Romanos appeared for Brash. Romanos said the remarks were serious because Hooton was not 'some random person on Reddit' but an established figure with gravitas. Romanos said Brash wanted an unreserved apology from Hooton. He said some 3500 people might have heard the initial podcast monologue, which was later circulated to more people on social media. McKnight said it was not right to strike out a case with 'very serious matters alleged'. He argued the case should go to trial. McKnight asked for today's strike-out application to be dismissed and costs awarded. Associate Judge Brittain reserved his decision but indicated a judgment on the strike-out application would likely be made in about a fortnight. Hooton was not in the courtroom today. Brash was, but he declined to comment afterwards. Brash, apart from also being a former Reserve Bank Governor, leads the Hobson's Pledge lobby group. Hooton is a columnist for the Business Herald and has worked in political and corporate communications and strategy for clients including the National Party. John Weekes is a business journalist covering aviation and court. He has previously covered consumer affairs, crime, politics and court.
