Don Brash v Matthew Hooton defamation case: High Court hears Brash wants ‘unreserved apology'
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
Scoop
16 hours ago
- Scoop
Representation Versus Reality; Reaching A Low Point
Have you noticed how, in New Zealand news items and weather reports, Nelson and Marlborough are called the "top" of the South Island rather than the 'north' of that island. We also get phrases such as the "lower North Island" and the "upper North Island". And New Zealand's narrators regularly refer to New Zealand as being at the "bottom of the world". These phrases reference the (conventionally portrayed) map of the world, not the world itself. Rotate the map 180°. Nelson-Marlborough will still be the north of the South Island. But they will now be at the bottom of the top island! (And noting that the Roof of the World is the Tibetan Himalayas, not the North Pole. The South Island is at a higher latitude than the North Island; eg 44°S rather than 38°S. And Upper Egypt is south of – lower than? – Lower Egypt.) Another really annoying aspect of a similar problem – in this case, the problem of colloquial jargon – is the propensity of financial journalists to refer to 'up' as 'north', as in "the stockmarket is heading north". An even more egregious example I heard on RNZ on 29 May (Reserve Bank cuts OCR 25 basis points) was the Acting Reserve Bank Governor (Christian Hawkesby) referring to the 'North Star' as the 'target' of arcane monetary policy. Especially problematic was when he said "if you knew your North Star was much further south". A bit 'woo woo' new age, if you get my meaning. Is the Reserve Bank trying to navigate the stormy seas where myth and reality meet, as in the search for Moby Dick? (Irish navigators 4,000 years ago could always return from a trip to Spain by following the North Star. Being in the 'lower world', Maui and Kupe faced more complex problems.) Does the Reserve Bank make policy decisions based on Tarot Cards? Indeed, astrology did guide policy formation for most of human history. The lesser problem is that 'bottom' has a pejorative meaning; a meaning that has been transferred to the word 'south' (which means 'poor' in the label 'Global South'). The more substantive problem is the diminishing ability of 'modern man' (or at least homo sapiens in the Global North) to think abstractly. A diminishing abstract capacity allows us to conflate the reality of the planet Earth with its representation in the form of a map. And once too many of us see the representation as the same thing as the reality, the ongoing repetition of that framed construct self-reinforces; we give in to the narrative for the sake of mental peace and quiet. The imputed 'reality' of the conventional map becomes hard-wired; the map becomes reality, hardware rather than software. Other examples of incongruent representation follow. Knowledge Rich 'Knowledge rich' is a label that doesn't match the package; refer Govt's curriculum changes come under fire RNZ 22 July 2025. The phrase 'knowledge rich' appears to be an example of vacuous bureaucratic weasel words, to use a bit of idiomatic anti-jargon; a label useless except for obfuscation purposes. We would expect that the term 'knowledge rich' would mean something like 'emphasising the acquisition of knowledge'; ie the more understanding of reality the better. When asked to define 'knowledge rich', the senior bureaucrat interviewee said in that RNZ interview: "really well-structured, clear content, the things that we want young people to know [my emphasis] and the things [skills?] that we want them to know how to do; we want them to learn … in nice sequential and … coherent learning pathway… structured ways … and that teachers need clarity on what needs to be taught and what students should be learning at any particular point on the pathway". That's actually reasonably clear for a bureaucrat put on the spot, but it's not in any way the meaning of 'knowledge rich'. This definition is about structure and constrained knowledge acquisition; it's about young people learning what the state wants them to learn, only what the state wants them to learn, and in the ways the state wants them to learn. The label contradicts the reality, possibly with political intent. A Humanitarian City The Israeli government has rightly been described as 'Machiavellian' (refer Machiavelli) when it represents its planned concentration zone in Rafah (Southern Gaza) as a 'Humanitarian City'. (Refer 'Humanitarian city' would be concentration camp for Palestinians, says former Israeli PM, The Guardian, 13 July 2025; and Israel turning Gaza into 'graveyard of children and starving': UNRWA chief, Al Jazeera News, 11 July 2025. And the new Israeli-American terror unit operating in Gaza is masquerading as the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation; refer What is the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, and why has it been criticised? Al Jazeera explainer, 20 May 2025. It is clear that the Israeli government is exploiting the increased naivete of the western news audience; a state of entrenched naivety that – as noted above – has become hard-wired in too many of our brains, thanks to the ongoing use of language which presents representation as reality. We should also note that, in Germany in the 1930s, Adolf Hitler was able to gain a groundswell of popular support through his representation of Jews as cunning and Machiavellian disrupters; it does not serve Israel well for their present-day leaders to give any semblance of support to Hitler's portrayal. Holocaust Through a relentless multi-decade campaign, it has become hard-wired into too many western brains that there was little more to World War Two than The Holocaust; ie that WW2 was essentially a battle between 'Hitler' and 'The Jews', and that it was resolved by white knights in the form of Churchill and Roosevelt and Truman coming to the rescue – albeit too late – by dealing to Hitler and giving (as compensation) Palestine to The Jews. In the process, most other narratives in that war are by now largely forgotten. World War Two was of course far more complex. Further, the label Holocaust is an inaccurate portrayal of those catastrophic events. One strength of the English language is its capacity to borrow from other languages. The correct label for this greatest of catastrophes should be that from the victims' own language; their label, the Shoah. The word holocaust, correctly used, has connotations of fire and brimstone (especially raining from the sky); the best-known biblical example being the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah 'documented' in Genesis. We may note that part of the divine and the diabolical intents of both the biblical holocaust and of the Shoah was to eradicate homosexuals. World War Two has a number of ready-made examples of true holocausts; many perpetrated by the Allies, starting with Operation Gomorrah which incinerated Hamburg in 1943, and ending with the nuclear explosion over Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945. The Holocaust obscures the holocausts, and much else. Inadequate representation indeed misrepresents the Shoah as a biblical spectacle, whereas it was really a coldly cynical mix of operations conducted in the then shadows. Was the Shoah a bigger catastrophe than Gomorrah? Probably yes. Genocide and Terrorism Earlier in the 2020s, people such as Paula Penfold and Liz Truss tried to represent the Chinese government's persecution of the East Turkestan (aka Xinjiang) Uyghurs as "genocide". They were 'weaponising' the g-word, part of a wider cross-partisan opportunity to demonise China during the Covid19 pandemic. In the light of recent events in the Levant, an obvious and unmistakeable genocide which too many people refrain from calling a 'genocide', those anti-China representations look rather silly. It is perfectly possible that people using the same identity label can be both victims of genocide and perpetrators of genocide; most likely at different places in different times. Most petty of all, this 'is it a genocide?' has become an elitist word-game. Anyone who thinks that if what is happening in Palestine does not meet some English-language definition of 'genocide' is morally bound to come up with an alternative word or phrase – presumably a somethingelse-icide – that more accurately conveys their assessment. Myself, I think that these events may be even more than a genocide; such as philosopher historian AC Grayling's term culturicide (from Among the Dead Cities) which expresses what – for example, the Morgenthau Plan – looked to impose on post-war Germany (seeking to reduce Germany, with a pre-war population of 80 million to an impoverished 'pastoral' nation of 30 million). Cultural erasure is more than genocide. Genocide is an unfortunate reality, a human propensity which has occurred in the past, is occurring in the present, and will occur periodically (unless finished by the 'final genocide', or biocide) in the future. Trying to weasel our way around it through an absence of language is a trait which has hard-wired itself, through denial and distractive fig-leaves, into elite cultures of complicity and impunity. Another such word is 'terrorism'. Winston Churchill and his bomber commander Arthur Harris had no doubt about the meaning of that word. So did the victims of their fiery terror, in Hamburg and many other cities. Now the representation of 'terror' through this word is restricted to a selected subset of resistance organisations. Winston Churchill understood that meaning of 'terrorism', too. His friend – Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne – was assassinated in Cairo by fascist Lehi terrorists. (Re Lehi, see Stern: The Man, the Gang and the State, Al Jazeera 13 Aug 2024.) Appeasement This word may be used improperly, as a damaging misrepresentation of a political opponent, or avoided when it is most needed. (Grayling, in Among the Dead Cities, concludes that the Churchill/Harris holocausts on German cities, were in large part an ineffective appeasement of Josef Stalin.) Here's a correct recent use of the a-word: "With such uncontrolled power and aggressive posture, it seems Israel is seeking submission [in Syria and the rest of the 'Middle East' region]. The Trump administration's approach of solving crises by appeasing Israel will entrench this doctrine and push the region into further instability." (Nour Odeh, reporting from Amman in lieu of Al Jazeera ban by Israel, Al Jazeera News, about 8:05am NZ time, 20 July 2025. She 'hit the nail on the head'.) Could someone who has been represented as an 'appeaser' ever be a justifiable winner of a Nobel Peace Prize? I think the answer is a 'qualified yes'; just as good fishers sometimes have to appease their quarry before reeling them in. But, I think, neither an appeaser of Netanyahu nor Stalin could qualify for that prize. In reality, appeasement has to be done sometimes. New Zealand dairy owners have been routinely asked to appease violent robbers. And, in the movies, when someone points a gun at someone and says "hands up", the victim almost always appeases the gunner, regardless of their moral position. 'Appeasement' is a representation that's both underused and overused; a representation designed to construct a deception. If we cannot distinguish between representation and reality, label and labelled, then we stand to become victims to all kinds of mischievous narratives. Cost of Living The Government and the Opposition both frame the alleged "cost of living crisis" as a problem of inflation rather than deflation. Indeed, the linguistic minefield around economic policy is so problematic that a whole separate article is required to examine it. The key issue for us here is that the 'cost-of-living' framing – ie representation – in government circles is that the economy must be in an inflationary phase and therefore a deflationary policy is required. However, when the New Zealand public complain about the 'cost-of-living' they are saying that prices are too high compared to their incomes; it's an 'affordability crisis', not an inflationary crisis. And clearly the deflationary retrenchment policies – meaning policies to slow the economy down, to instigate a recession – pursued by the government are a critical part of the problem. The government's solution is to represent its actual class-war anti-growth policies as 'pro-growth' policies. And the Labour Opposition completely falls for the way the government frames New Zealand's structural recession as a 'cost-of-living' crisis. At present, New Zealand has near-record-high (north!?) 'terms of trade', only slightly below the record highs of 2022. New Zealand's terms of trade are now 50% higher than they were in 2000, and nearly 100% higher than the dramatic lows of the mid-1970s and early 1980s. As when Brian Easton wrote In Stormy Seas: The Post-War New Zealand Economy in 1997, the terms of trade represented the stormy waves, some bigger than others; and the favourable crests of those waves were when New Zealand expected (and generally got) economic good times. The troughs during the Muldoon years – not Robert Muldoon's fault; he never had the power to shift the tides of a stormy world – were very difficult times for Aotearoa New Zealand. In these terms the twenty-first century has been the 'best of times' for New Zealand, and the 2020s the 'very best of times'. Yet they are also the 'worst of times', to reference Charles Dickens. (Many of our most potent truths come from literature.) New Zealand, like other countries, has experienced economic cycles and economic shocks. Through my lifetime one consistent cycle has been the short 'trade-cycle', on average about 32 months. We are near the crest of that cycle now. The last quarterly growth peak, September 2022, led to an annual growth peak of 4% in the year-to June 2023. Based on the usual timing of the trade cycle, June 2025 will be the next quarterly peak. It will not be pretty, if that will be the best GDP data that we get on this government's watch. Any positivity when the next GDP figures are released in September, in colloquial jargon, may be characterised as a 'dead-cat bounce'. The government is undertaking structural retrenchment under the cover of a 'cost-of-living crisis' that means very different things to different people. Insinuating that New Zealand has a crisis of inflation – taken as a synonym for 'overspending' – when it has a very real crisis of structural recession and growing unemployment, is a particularly cynical misrepresentation of reality. Conclusion We too easily fall for these misrepresentations of reality; for representations that, in our minds, become a reality like treacle; sets of overlayed representations which play tricks on our minds. That makes us, and our political Opposition parties, quite unable to form coherent critiques of the too many misrepresented and problematic things that are happening to us. In New Zealand, although we are allegedly at the 'bottom of the world', in the Far Southeast (fortunately not in the incorrectly named 'Middle East'!). We also pride ourselves as being in the West and in the Global North. What is genuinely true is that Aotearoa New Zealand is geographically very far from most of the rest of humanity. We could use that birds-eye bottom-of-the-world detached perspective to see past the labels, the frames, the self-serving narratives. We don't have to play 'silly buggers' when the rest of the world is so-doing; we can cut through the 'bullshit', to use some more colloquial jargon. We can be the North Star of the South. PS. With escalating geopolitical wars, and plenty of undertested nuclear weapons in the hands of numerous political sociopaths, being at 'the bottom of the world' may not be such a great place to be. All of us of a certain age remember British, American, and French nuclear testing in Oceania. Some, a bit older, remember nuclear testing in Japan. ------------- Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand. Keith Rankin Political Economist, Scoop Columnist Keith Rankin taught economics at Unitec in Mt Albert since 1999. An economic historian by training, his research has included an analysis of labour supply in the Great Depression of the 1930s, and has included estimates of New Zealand's GNP going back to the 1850s. Keith believes that many of the economic issues that beguile us cannot be understood by relying on the orthodox interpretations of our social science disciplines. Keith favours a critical approach that emphasises new perspectives rather than simply opposing those practices and policies that we don't like. Keith retired in 2020 and lives with his family in Glen Eden, Auckland.
Newsroom
18 hours ago
- Newsroom
Ripple effects of Trump tariffs leave gloomy trade outlook
The global economic uncertainty caused by Donald Trump's tariffs will likely reduce global demand for New Zealand exports and make the coalition's goal of doubling exports even more challenging, the Reserve Bank's chief economist says. However, the fall in export demand is likely to be considerably smaller than that seen following the 2008 global financial crisis, Paul Conway says. Speaking at an Export NZ event on Thursday, Conway said New Zealand was deeply influenced by global developments, meaning 'even if tariffs don't hit us that hard directly, we will feel the ripple effects as they work through the global economy'. The global economy had been dealing with more frequent and varied shocks since the early 2000s, with uncertainty on the rise and economic tools increasingly used for political and strategic ends. 'It makes the rules of the game less clear. It makes the global economy more difficult to navigate, with spillover effects into the domestic economy.' The direct impact on New Zealand would be softened by the fact that 'we're not actually as export driven as we like to think we are', with the export share of GDP having fallen for decades, along with the fact that tourism exports were intrinsically difficult to tariff. Conway said meat, wine, and precision instruments like medical devices would be among the most directly affected export sectors. The US bought little of the types of dairy products exported by New Zealand, meaning the Trump tariffs would have a minimal impact on global dairy prices. US demand in global markets was stronger for the goods that New Zealand imported, meaning there was likely to be greater price reductions for imports than exports. The tariffs would also reshape global trade flows as buyers and sellers adjusted, with American buyers likely to look for goods from countries subject to lower tariffs in addition to locally made products. While Chinese exports to the US had dropped by roughly 15 percent in the year to June, the country's exports had held steady overall as shipments were redirected to the European Union, Southeast Asia and other countries. New Zealand's technology sector could benefit from reduced US demand for Chinese products, while the same could be true for meat exporters if a 50 percent tariff on Brazillian imports into the US went ahead as planned. With our current 10 percent tariff no higher than any other country, Conway said we were on the right side of global shifts in trade flows. However, the broader uncertainty caused by Trump's tariffs would slow the New Zealand economy down, with household spending and business investment heavily affected by the lack of confidence about what the future had in store. 'Why invest in new machinery if you're unsure about future demand? Why take on debt when you're unsure how interest rates or prices might move given increased macroeconomic volatility? It's a similar story with households.' Overall, there was likely to be a negative demand shock that reduced medium-term inflation pressures in New Zealand – a contrast to the US, where the tariffs were expected to add to inflation. While the effects would not be comparable to the GFC – another global shock with its epicentre in the US – there would be a material slowdown in trading partner growth. Asked how the gloomy trade outlook would affect the coalition Government's goal of doubling exports by 2034, Conway said he got in trouble for commenting too much on current government policy but described it as 'an ambitious target' and 'challenging'. 'Full power to the Government, and to the businesses in behind that; actually, I think it's sort of up to businesses. The Government creates the incentives, and it's businesses that need to do that.' Trade in services (outside of tourism) was the bright spot for New Zealand exports, which made sense given the country's remoteness and the weightless nature of trading products via digital means. The longer levels of uncertainty remained high, the more pronounced the drag on trade and economic growth would be, Conway said. 'A short spike in uncertainty isn't that big a deal, even if it goes extremely high, but if it goes up and sort of stays there, that can sort of suck down growth. 'I'm not sure that we're looking into that, [but] I do think there will be a sigh of relief when the tariff schedule of the US does remain constant. It's not just the fact of tariffs, but the fact of them changing all the time, which is contributing to uncertainty.'
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Erica Stanford faces greatest NCEA test
Arguably, Stanford's most important move was the simplest: her ban on smartphones in schools informed by New York University's Professor Jonathan Haidt. The damage smartphones do to developing minds is comparable to alcohol and cannabis, so that nothing else will much matter if they're not sensibly regulated. At least, they must be kept out of schools, which Stanford delivered three weeks after being sworn in. Likewise, no amount of money or other reforms would much matter if primary students remained in barn-like so-called modern learning environments (MLEs), pushed on schools by the Key Government for reasons never properly explained and retained by Jacinda Ardern's Education Minister, Chris Hipkins. Effectively compulsory until Stanford arrived, she quickly made MLEs voluntary and has now banned new ones from being built altogether. But these were quick-win prerequisites to ensure structured learning could begin again in primary classrooms. Stanford also began the much more difficult work of restoring content and rigour to the school curriculum. First were new maths and English curricula, spelling out clearly what teachers are meant to teach, and how. That departs from recent decades, when subject curricula would instead focus on 'outcomes', leaving teachers to work out what to do for their students to achieve them. Now, practical teaching resources are included in curriculum documents, with over 800,000 new maths resources already provided to primary schools. That the curriculum was not just launched but is already being implemented in 92% of primary schools suggests Stanford has a rare ability to force bureaucrats to do what she wants, rather than the reverse. It's too simplistic to call Stanford's new maths and English curricula 'back to basics', but they do focus more on teachers passing on knowledge to students than on facilitating 'learners' to discover or invent knowledge themselves. The latter can wait for primary students to start their post-graduate work in a decade or two. In the meantime, Stanford's curriculum assumes there's foundational stuff they need to learn first. Following maths and English, the next priorities are the natural sciences, the social sciences, health, and Te Reo Māori. Stanford's curriculum reforms will become harder politically as they move into more contested subjects. But the politics may be easier if her focus remains on foundational knowledge, delivered in a structured environment, in a logical sequence, rather than trying to introduce the latest and most advanced theories in primary classrooms. Kids need to learn addition before multiplication, how to read before how to interpret texts, about atoms before electrons, and that the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840 between the British Crown and Māori chiefs before considering how well it has been honoured. As these students reach secondary school, Stanford's next big decision is how to extend her approach into the qualifications system and what to do about NCEA. Political blame for NCEA can be shared widely. Every party in Parliament has been part of a government that contributed to the fiasco, and all were warned by the country's best educators that it would dumb down secondary education and lead to a two-tier system, benefiting the rich and well connected at the expense of the middle class and poor. Everyone meant well. The NCEA's origins were David Lange and Phil Goff's Learning for Life report, which recommended establishing the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) 'to provide an across-the-board approach to the validation of qualifications in schools and in vocational and advanced academic areas'. This was a response to everyone needing some form of higher education in a more advanced economy, and a desire to break down the distinction and allow cross-crediting between vocational training and academic study. National's Lockwood Smith saw the advantages in trying to clearly define what knowledge, understanding and skills students and people in the workforce were meant to achieve, and to worry less about where they might develop them and more about whether they had. He was backed by employers who argued they needed to know exactly what potential recruits knew and could do rather than that they had scored 59, 71 or 82 in an exam. The proposed system was at the centre of Smith's Education for the 21st Century, which I ghost-wrote. But politicians should always be wary of utopianism, and the idea that NZQA or anyone else could write or validate rigorous outcomes statements for the entirety of human knowledge and capabilities, and then operate a system giving each student a detailed certificate accurately recording what they knew and could do was preposterous. To National's credit, it was never confident to finally press go on the new system. That was left to Helen Clark's Labour Government. The Key and Ardern-Hipkins Governments then set up review panels and made tweaks, but basically left the system unchanged. Meanwhile, the universities never took the system seriously while increasing numbers of schools adopted foreign systems or tried to develop their own. The upshot is NCEA delivering the opposite of that intended. If students go to a school offering Cambridge or the International Baccalaureate or take a traditional university route, their qualification is taken seriously, domestically and internationally. If they don't, they're left with the NCEA which isn't. You don't need to be a Marxist to see who that has benefited, and it is surely not those Lange, Goff or anyone intended. Now, as revealed by the Weekend Herald, even the left-wing education bureaucracy accepts NCEA has failed. Stanford faces probably the most consequential decision she'll ever make. Will she follow the Key and Ardern-Hipkins Governments and try to save NCEA with another review? Or will she accept the whole concept was utopian from the outset, and has delivered the catastrophic unintended consequences utopian visions invariably bring? For better or worse, schools, parents and students have tended to favour Cambridge, an internationally recognised qualification originally developed for Third World countries without their own systems. Singapore used it for many years after independence while getting its house in order. The least-disruptive option would be Stanford following Singapore's approach, abolishing NCEA from Year 11 next year, and engaging with Cambridge to roll out its system nationwide. That would require demanding Cambridge work with New Zealand experts to develop rigorous assessments for subjects like New Zealand history and Te Reo Maori. For a long-term, nationwide contract, it would surely be prepared to do so. Like Singapore, we would then progressively evolve Cambridge's exams into a genuinely New Zealand system. Stanford moved swiftly and boldly on smartphones, MLEs and curriculum reform. The same is needed to quickly put the multi-decade, multi-party NCEA disaster behind us.
