Taxpayers' Union Denies Hager Claim of Harassment Payout

The Taxpayers' Union says it never paid to settle a sexual harassment claim against its executive director Jordan Williams.

Chair Ruth Richardson said the organisation "categorically denies" ever making any payment, in response to an allegation in Nicky Hager's new book Dirty Work. "There have been no claims, let alone settlements," Richardson said, according to RNZ.

Richardson said she had spoken directly with previous chairs and the organisation's co-founder, who sat on the board until 2023, and all said the allegation is totally untrue. Williams called the suggestion of a settled claim against him "totally false".

The broader context here is the denial leaves no room for a quiet, confidential payout the current board might have missed. It is a full rejection, not a partial one.

Hager's book, subtitled The Taxpayers' Union and New Zealand's Hard Right, was launched at an event in Wellington on Tuesday evening. It launched on 22 September 2026, according to RNZ.

In the book, Hager alleges the board paid money to deal with several employment disputes in recent years, including at least one sexual harassment case against Williams. A separate report described it as a claim from a staff member, according to the NZ Herald.

Hager said the payout claim was based on two separate sources with knowledge of what happened. He said the woman involved went to a lawyer who helped reach the settlement.

The board has put its response on the record in a statement titled 'Taxpayers' Union Board Categorically Rejects Hager Allegation' on taxpayers.org.nz, according to the Taxpayers' Union. In its wider response, the Union said it will not be distracted by false claims.

Williams has also questioned how the book was put together. He alleged Hager did not seek an interview with the Taxpayers' Union before publishing Dirty Work, and published without giving the organisation a chance to respond, according to Newstalk ZB. Williams said it is "very tempting" to sue Hager over the book, according to the NZ Herald.

In my view for those who follow Parliament, this now sits in familiar territory. An on-the-record denial from a board chair and chief executive sits against an allegation carried by two unnamed sources and a lawyer said to have been involved. Neither side has put further documents in public on the facts provided.

The broader question for Press Gallery readers — reporters based in Parliament — is process. Whether a right of reply, meaning a fair chance to respond before publication, was sought goes to how the allegation will be weighed. So does whether either side tests it further. A defamation case, meaning a court case over false harm to reputation, would require evidence to be given and tested. Without that, political staff must judge competing accounts on attribution alone.