DISCLAIMER: I’m a financial supporter of the Taxpayers’ Union (TPU) and a former member of the Board.
The Taxpayers’ Union did the country a major service in January when it pointed out that $4 million of taxpayers’ money was spent on a nonsensical “science” project whereby “whale music” and traditional Māori prayer (karakia) was played to kauri trees to help cure the trees of the dieback disease.
The genesis of this crackpot theory is that in an earlier life whales and kauri trees were brothers and therefore music from the whale could sooth the sickness in the kauri tree and cure it.
Yes, there are actually adults in this so-called sophisticated and modern nation who believe in that kind of spiritual claptrap.
But it was worse than that.
At the centre of this story is Melanie Mark-Shadbolt. Describing herself as an “environmental sociologist” she was until recently a Deputy Secretary at the Ministry for the Environment.
She is currently a director of New Zealand’s Biological Heritage National Science Challenge. That organisation allocated the four million taxpayer-funded dollars, originating from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for the playing of whale music to an outfit named Te Tira Whakamataki – a company of which Melanie Mark-Shadbolt just happens to be the chief executive!
None of these facts are disputed.
The Taxpayers’ Union has taken Ms Mark-Shadbolt at her word and said that she recused herself from making the decision to appoint her own company to play the whale music and take the four million dollars.
But that’s not enough for Ms Mark-Shadbolt. She believes that by simply pointing out the facts of this story the Taxpayers’ Union is guilty of defamation.
Which by any stretch of the imagination, is surely a step way too far.
This journalist always believed in the mantra “the truth cannot be sued.”
Melanie Mark-Shadbolt, through her lawyers, has asked the TPU to take down the original post about the story and her connections to it. They also want the TPU to purge the emails sent to their database subscribers so that all trace of the story will just disappear.
Otherwise Ms Mark-Shadbolt’s lawyers say they will sue the TPU and its Executive Director Jordan Williams for a sum in excess of $225,000.
On the surface it seems an unlikely claim because no facts are or can be disputed. The TPU at no stage said Ms Mark-Shadbolt used her position at the Science Challenge to benefit Te Tira Whakamataki. It went even further and asked her for an interview on the subject, and then amended the TPU website story to clarify that Ms Mark-Shadbolt recused herself from the decision to award money to her own company.
Here's another fact or two: there are only two directors of the Biological Heritage National Science Challenge – Melanie Mark-Shadbolt and Daniel Patrick. There is a (presumably) full time staff under their direction. And as for Te Tira Whakamataki, Ms Mark-Shadbolt is the CEO, and listed as one of three “co-founders and trustees.”
There is an old saying that perception is reality. But if Ms Mark-Shadbolt, daughter of a former cabinet minister, says she had nothing to do with the awarding of a contract to her company then we must accept her word.
For her then to issue legal proceedings against some facts being published might just be a new low in defamation cases in New Zealand.
The TPU is fighting furiously to see this challenge off and is asking its members to financially contribute to the fight. But as Jordan Williams points out, defending a High Court claim will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and frankly with some of the decisions coming from our judicial system in recent times, could you really trust the High Court to worry about little things like facts?
(Remember the High Court judge who obviously failed to properly read the Marine and Coastal Area [Takutai Moana] Act of 2011 and invented the oxymoronic concept of “shared exclusivity.” That is linguistically impossible!)
The TPU believes this case is really about trying to shut the organisation down financially and force them out of existence. Just who is funding Ms Mark-Shadbolt is unknown but she does list descent from six iwi, many of whom have considerable resources based on Treaty settlements. Maybe one of those iwi or people associated with them are funding the case.
Either way, it’s an important case for this country. If you can defame someone by merely pointing out some inconvenient facts then we have issues far more serious than we thought.
NB: This story has yet to appear in a mainstream media outlet. Isn’t the farcical waste of four million taxpayer dollars and its questionable provenance a worthwhile news story? Perhaps the New Zealand Herald under new ownership might be interested !
Peter
Thanks for this article. I am surprised that the Free Speech Union hasn't picked up on this.
The circumstances of the case are interesting.
I can understand the desire on the part of Ms. Mark-Shadbolt to have the material taken down from the Taxpayer's Union website. That remedy would have been available under the Harmful Digital Communications Act if she could fulfil the requirements for a take down order. But to purge emails from an internal system - that has little to do with any "sting" associated with the defamation. It raises data protection and security issues as well together with privacy issues.
But behind all of this I sense a tikanga argument developing. I am not sure how or what way but it will become part of the tapestry if the matter ever gets to Court.
At the moment we have a "lawyer's letter".
Matters will get serious if a writ - sorry, anachronistic legal term - a notice of propceeding with a statement of claim with defemation as a cause of action is filed and served.
And you are right. Truth is a defence in a defamation action.
Granny will run a mile rather that publicise this. It simply won't do because it doesn't fit granny's narrative; that all things to do with Maori spirituality are sacrosanct. Besides they're far too busy exposing Christianity.