Investigative journalist Nicky Hager has turned his attention to the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union, alleging that the organisation sits within a wider network of politically aligned advocacy groups whose relationships are not always apparent to the public. But some of the book’s strongest allegations remain disputed, and Newsroom notes there is no conclusive evidence of coordination between the Taxpayers’ Union and the coalition Government
Report by eLocal
Newsroom associate editor Sam Sachdeva’s analysis of Hager’s new book identifies an important distinction at the outset: unlike The Hollow Men and Dirty Politics, which drew heavily on obtained internal documents and correspondence, the new book relies substantially on interviews with an undisclosed number of former Taxpayers’ Union staff and associates. Newsroom says that difference means many of Hager’s claims will require further testing.
Hager did not approach Taxpayers’ Union executive director Jordan Williams or other central subjects before publication. He has said this is his established practice because approaching subjects beforehand can create the possibility of injunctions. The Taxpayers’ Union argues that this deprived it of an opportunity to challenge allegations or provide context before publication.
That distinction matters. Dirty Work contains allegations, documented relationships and interpretations of how those relationships operate. They should not automatically be treated as the same category of evidence.
What Hager Says He Found
One of Hager’s central arguments is that the Taxpayers’ Union should not be understood simply as an independent organisation campaigning for lower taxes and government accountability.
He describes what he says is a network of organisations with overlapping people, resources or political objectives. Hager says Williams envisaged a "constellation of little groups" that could appear publicly independent while broadly moving in the same direction. Newsroom reports that Hager identifies links involving the Free Speech Union, Hobson’s Pledge and Sensible Sentencing Trust, among others.
The existence of relationships between advocacy organisations is not itself evidence of wrongdoing. Organisations across the political spectrum cooperate, share personnel and campaign around overlapping causes. The more important transparency question is whether organisations presented to citizens as independent voices are materially coordinated, and whether the public can reasonably identify those relationships.
That is where Hager’s "spiderweb" argument becomes relevant.
Tobacco Funding and Advocacy
One area where there is an established public record concerns tobacco-industry funding.
Newsroom reported in 2019 that British American Tobacco had been a corporate funder of the Taxpayers’ Union. At the time, the organisation said donors did not dictate its positions or campaigns. Dirty Work now makes further allegations about contacts between the organisation and tobacco interests relating to smokefree and vaping policy.
Those newer allegations require independent substantiation.
Hager also reportedly identifies private donations from Zuru co-founder Nick Mowbray and his father Harry. Significantly, however, Newsroom says Hager himself concludes there is "no sign of any substantial flow of money occurring" from international organisations such as the Atlas Network.
That qualification is important because it separates evidence of domestic donors and established industry relationships from broader claims about foreign financing.
The National Party Database Allegation
Another potentially significant claim concerns Taxpayers’ Union co-founder and Curia Market Research director David Farrar.
Hager alleges Farrar used access to a National Party electoral database to target a Taxpayers’ Union anti-capital-gains-tax mail campaign towards wealthy National and ACT voters before the 2020 election.
Farrar emphatically denies the allegation, telling RNZ it was "1000 percent wrong". Newsroom also notes that Hager says it is unclear whether the National Party knew about the alleged activity.
At present, therefore, this remains a disputed allegation rather than an established fact.
No Conclusive Evidence of Coalition Coordination
There is another finding that deserves as much attention as Hager’s accusations.
Newsroom states there is no conclusive evidence of collaboration between the Taxpayers’ Union and members of the current coalition Government.
Hager argues there are politicians within right-aligned parties who tolerate, cooperate with or support the organisation, but political alignment and contact are not the same thing as proof of coordinated control.
This distinction is particularly important during an election campaign.
A lobby organisation advocating policies subsequently adopted by politicians does not by itself demonstrate that the organisation controls those politicians. Establishing that stronger proposition would require evidence showing coordination, direction or some other substantive mechanism linking advocacy to government decision-making.
Taxpayers’ Union Pushes Back
The Taxpayers’ Union has responded to the publication of Dirty Work by challenging Hager's methods and allegations.
Williams says Hager failed to put serious allegations to the organisation before publication and accuses him of presenting selective information without necessary context.
The organisation says approximately two-thirds of its donations are small-dollar contributions, less than 3 percent comes from industry memberships and donations, including alcohol and nicotine interests, and roughly 30 percent comes from supporters contributing $1,500 or more annually.
Those figures are the Taxpayers’ Union's own account and have not been independently established by the material reviewed for this report.
The organisation has also categorically rejected Hager’s allegation concerning an alleged sexual-harassment settlement involving Williams. Taxpayers’ Union chair Ruth Richardson says there have been "no claims, let alone settlements".
That allegation therefore remains directly contested.
The Bigger Question Is Transparency
The significance of Dirty Work may ultimately lie less in whether every allegation survives scrutiny and more in the questions it raises about how political advocacy operates in New Zealand.
Advocacy organisations have become sophisticated political actors. They conduct polling, generate research, organise public campaigns, mobilise supporters, purchase advertising, engage journalists and politicians, and increasingly operate their own media channels.
The Taxpayers’ Union is currently running election debates, operating its Bribe-O-Meter and promoting a five-point Taxpayer Manifesto for the government formed after the November 7 election. Its own material describes the debates as being streamed live through NZHerald.co.nz.
Those activities are legitimate forms of political participation. But the greater an organisation's ability to influence public debate, the stronger the public interest becomes in understanding its funding, organisational relationships, methodology and potential conflicts.
The same standard should apply irrespective of ideology. Business lobby groups, unions, environmental organisations, iwi organisations, think tanks, campaign organisations and NGOs can all seek to influence public policy.
Transparency allows citizens to decide how much weight to give them.
Will This In Fact Make New Zealand Stronger?
Will this in fact make New Zealand stronger? The useful test is not whether Hager succeeds in damaging the Taxpayers’ Union, nor whether the organisation succeeds in discrediting Hager. It is whether New Zealanders emerge with greater visibility over who is attempting to influence their political choices, who finances that activity, how supposedly independent organisations relate to one another, and where advocacy ends and coordinated political activity begins.
There is an equally important safeguard on the other side. Allegations should not become established facts simply through repetition. Hager’s claims need evidence; the Taxpayers’ Union's rebuttals need scrutiny; and relationships between organisations should be demonstrated rather than inferred merely because they share political objectives.
A resilient democracy does not require citizens to be protected from advocacy. It requires citizens to know who is advocating, who is paying, what interests are involved and what evidence supports the claims being placed before them.
On that measure, greater transparency across New Zealand's entire political influence industry would strengthen rather than restrict individual political agency.
Source
Based on reporting by Sam Sachdeva for Newsroom, 23 September 2026.
Additional context:
New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union response, 22 September 2026.
Taxpayers’ Union Board response, 22 September 2026.