[ad_1]
OPINION: Sometimes useful information comes from the strangest places.
After an unexpectedly explosive Friday, we now know how much a defamation lawsuit can cost, if the $ 333,000 awarded, most of which will go toward paying legal fees, in the Trevor Mallard case is somewhat typical. This kind of detail is hard to come by (and it seems Mallard didn’t want us to ever have it) given that most defamation defenses are not paid for by the taxpayer, and therefore their cost is not publicly available.
No one wants to be slapped in the face for a libel suit here in New Zealand, thanks to legislation that is considered one of the most restrictive in the world.
Our laws are, for example, almost the polar opposite to those of the United States; where a prince of darkness like Harvey Weinstein would have to prove in court that The New York Times had published false information about him. Here and in Australia, the person saying the thing (or posting the information) in question must show that it is indeed or substantially in the public interest. That makes defamation lawsuits more difficult to combat, and raises a barrier that victims and survivors find difficult to scale. You have to assume that free speech goes cold as a result.
READ MORE:
* Speaker of Parliament Trevor Mallard costs taxpayers $ 333,000 after rape charge
* Speaker apologizes to man after ‘rape’ comments
* The Speaker of Parliament, Trevor Mallard, to MPs: ‘Behave or I’ll give you away’
* Spokesperson Trevor Mallard loses suppression argument in defamation claim
A legal bill of $ 334,000 is not something most New Zealanders can afford in their wildest dreams. Apparently Mallard once would have had to pay this bill himself, but changed the rules after the fact, to allow payment with public funds. Regardless of what you think about the taxpayer having to fork out for this (I’m not a fan, considering the money could have been put into other uses like, oh, I don’t know, mental health services maybe?), That part leaves a taste in the mouth.
ROBERT KITCHEN / Things
Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard may have to go, but at what cost, asks Alison Mau.
I’m not drawing a direct line between the above (the chill part) and the New Zealand public’s gift to President Trevor to bail him out. By all accounts, Mallard shouldn’t have said what he did, and he apologized that he had to.
In fact, one of the big problems with this current parliamentary / media dispute is that it focuses so narrowly on the actions of a politician. We may see Mallard resign over this, and perhaps he should, given the machinations he has now been shown to have done to avoid the personal financial consequences of his actions.
But there is another much broader lens to train on this topic, and to elucidate it I must thank Jayne Costelloe, who wrote to me this week. I have spoken to Jayne on and off since the #metooNZ project started in 2018; He worked in Parliament almost 30 years ago and sexual harassment ended his career. Like many of these cases, Jayne’s is complicated: She was already recovering from a sexual assault in her life outside of work at the time. The unwanted advances of a very, very veteran deputy were the final straw for her.
To say that she is not very impressed by the political situation this week would be an understatement.
Unsurprisingly, Jayne is aware of developments in this area. You have paid close attention to Debbie Francis’ independent review of Bullying and harassment in the New Zealand parliamentary workplace and its aftermath, and the aftermath has left her, to put it politely, disappointed.
Jayne saw Mallard’s comment in 2019, which turned out to be a costly misstep, as a beacon of possibility; for her, it represented a potential advance in the search for justice against sexual crimes.
“There was definitely a late start in his career for him here as a defender of justice for half the population, if he wanted to, as he seemed prepared to do.”
This is where it gets complex; An investigation by Parliamentary Services found that the serious sexual assault charge against the staff member Mallard appeared to refer to (but did not name) was unfounded. Mallard will say no more about the situation, citing court-ordered confidentiality. If the man who lost his job was wrongly accused, then he deserves our empathy.
But the fact is, Jayne, and many other women and men who have been harassed or bullied in Parliament, felt a surge of hope when they heard Mallard’s original comment. As a result of the libel lawsuit, the plot, Costelloe says, has become a spectacle of male politicians all dancing together on the head of a pin rather than what it should be: a broader conversation about worker safety. .
henry cooke / things
Debbie Francis and Spokesperson Trevor Mallard in announcing bullying and harassment in New Zealand’s Parliamentary Workplace Review.
“[David] Seymour’s attempt to skewer Mallard for wasting taxpayer money in litigation is misdirected, shallow, and selfish. Why are you not more concerned with addressing, if not the victimization of your female colleagues by your coworkers, the current epidemic of sex crimes experienced by the female population of New Zealand, as evidenced by the waiting list of 6 months for aid reported by all relevant agencies?
“In short, there is no help. There are lots of rapes and serious sexual assaults everywhere.
“This is the serious concern that Seymour should raise in the media. This is where the biggest cost is, both in taxpayer dollars and wasted female potential, mostly young people. Perhaps you could initiate a cost deficit analysis for the country in this regard. He won’t, because nobody cares, least of all Parliament. “
There are many who say that Mallard should go and I can understand why. However, if it does, does it not leave the effort to cleanse Parliament of harassment and intimidation in shambles?
It is up to Mallard to guide the response to Debbie Francis’ shocking report. He handed over most of the initial work to Anne Tolley, who was assigned the first step: creating a Code of Conduct (a small first step, actually, the mountain of dysfunction that needs to be dismantled).
Tolley left in the election. If Mallard also leaves, where is the guarantee focus on this long-awaited reform, which will not be completely lost?
