Key Takeaways:
- TVNZ and Dr. Sanjana Hattotuwa are being sued by Batchelor over an August 2023 story about an anti-co-governance pamphlet.
- The pamphlet made unfounded claims, including that a group of Māori elites were conspiring to take over the country and that co-governance was the "installation of apartheid" in New Zealand.
- Hattotuwa described Batchelor’s platforms and pamphlet as "extremely worrying" and "dangerous speech" that incites hate and instigates harm offline.
- Batchelor claims that the TVNZ reporter did not put Hattotuwa’s comments to him during a 9-minute call, while TVNZ says that Hattotuwa’s claims were put to Batchelor and his position was accurately reflected in the article.
- The case is ongoing, with TVNZ defending the article and Batchelor seeking damages for alleged defamation.
Introduction to the Case
The case against TVNZ and Dr. Sanjana Hattotuwa, a former research director for The Disinformation Project, has been ongoing, with Batchelor seeking damages for alleged defamation. The case centers around an August 2023 story about an anti-co-governance pamphlet distributed by Batchelor before the general election that year. The pamphlet made unfounded claims, including that a group of Māori elites were conspiring to take over the country and that co-governance was the "installation of apartheid" in New Zealand. Hattotuwa was quoted in the article, describing Batchelor’s platforms and pamphlet as "extremely worrying" and "dangerous speech" that incites hate and instigates harm offline.
The 9-Minute Call
On the witness stand, Batchelor claimed that the TVNZ reporter did not put Hattotuwa’s comments to him during a 9-minute call on August 5. However, phone records show that TVNZ Māori Affairs Correspondent Te Aniwa Hurihanganui spoke to Batchelor for nine minutes just after midday on August 5. Batchelor said that they spoke only about the Electoral Commission’s concerns about the pamphlet, while TVNZ says that Hattotuwa’s claims were put to Batchelor and his position was accurately reflected in the article. The online article states: "Batchelor denies he is racist, inciting hate or spreading misinformation." Batchelor told the court that he was "shocked" and "hurt" by the article, and that he had no recollection of Hattotuwa’s claims being put to him.
TVNZ’s Defense
TVNZ is defending the case, with representatives, including Hurihanganui, taking the stand on Wednesday. They say that Hattotuwa’s claims were put to Batchelor and his position was accurately reflected in the article. TVNZ lawyer Daniel Nilsson said that the reporter’s evidence was credible and she should be believed. She had held the story to give Batchelor the chance to respond to Hattotuwa’s comments. Hurihanganui also took the witness stand to defend her work, saying that she remembered putting the claims of "racist rhetoric" to Batchelor, but that his response was not succinct. She had summarised his denials in the article, which she said was the most concise and clear way she could have communicated his response to viewers and readers.
Jim Grenon’s Involvement
Earlier on Wednesday, Batchelor said that Jim Grenon, a shareholder and director of NZME, called him the day after the article appeared. Grenon had found lawyers for Batchelor and had been funding the case because he had viewed the article as a "terrible injustice". Batchelor said that he was "very, very happy" that someone wanted to help him, as he thought "What am I going to do about this? This is wrong". Grenon’s involvement in the case has raised questions about the motivations behind the lawsuit, with some suggesting that it may be an attempt to silence critics of Batchelor’s views.
The Ongoing Case
The case, before Judge David Clark, continues, with TVNZ defending the article and Batchelor seeking damages for alleged defamation. The outcome of the case will have significant implications for freedom of speech and the media’s ability to report on controversial issues. As the case progresses, it is likely that more information will come to light about the circumstances surrounding the article and the motivations of the parties involved. Ultimately, the court will have to decide whether the article was defamatory and whether TVNZ and Hattotuwa are liable for damages. The case highlights the importance of a free and independent media in holding those in power to account, and the need for robust protections for journalists and media outlets to report on controversial issues without fear of reprisal.