14 April 2025
Dear
I refer to your official information request dated 3 March 2025 to Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment (MBIE) which was transferred to Manaaki Whenua Landcare
Research (MWLR) by the MBIE and received on 17 March 2025.
You requested, under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act), the fol owing information:
1.
All conflict of interest declarations made by Melanie Mark-Shadbolt in her roles at:
a.
BioHeritage National Science Chal enge
b.
Ngā Rākau Taketake
c.
Te Tira Whakamātaki
2.
Al meeting minutes, emails, and internal correspondence discussing:
a.
Whether her conflicts of interest were declared and recorded.
b.
Any steps taken to manage or mitigate these conflicts.
3.
A list of funding decisions in which Melanie Mark-Shadbolt was involved, specifying:
a.
Total amount of funding al ocated to Te Tira Whakamātaki or other
organisations she is affiliated with.
b.
Her role in the decision-making process for those grants.
4.
Copies of financial audits or compliance reports assessing conflicts of interest within
these
The information you have requested is enclosed.
Question One: Al conflict of interest declaration made by Melanie Mark-Shadbolt in
her roles at:
a.
BioHeritage National Science Chal enge
b.
Ngā Rākau Taketake
The papers considered by the governance group of New Zealand’s Biological Heritage
National Science Chal enge at each meeting included both a register of the interests of
governance group members and directorate and a specific agenda item to consider interests.
Attached as “Agendas” is a compilation of agendas from during Ms Mark-Shadbolt’s time as
Co-Director showing that interests register was a standard agenda item.
Melanie Mark-Shadbolt made numerous declarations of interest in relation to several entities
and roles during the two periods that she served as Co-Director, see attached “GG Interests
Register” - with personal information withheld.
c.
Te Tira Whakamātaki
As Te Tira Whakamātaki is an independent charity MWLR do not have access to any
declarations Ms Mark-Shadbolt may have made to them.
Question Two: Al meeting minutes, emails, and internal correspondence discussing:
a.
Whether her conflicts of interest were declared and recorded.
As outlined in the Conflict of Interest Policy, all personal, professional, and institutional
conflicts of interest were required to be declared in a detailed Interest Register.
The interest’s register was a usual part of governance meeting papers. Minutes however wil
only disclose where changes were made from initial disclosure, so we have provided the
actual interest disclosure for you as noted above.
Other references to Ms Mark-Shadbolt and conflict are:
• Conflict of interest management in particular with regard to Te Tira Whakamātaki and
Ms Mark-Shadbolt was noted as part of the BioHeritage Assurance and Risk review
see below for further details. During the Thursday, 13 February 2020 Governance
meeting there was a paper presented on entering a Memorandum of Understanding
with Te Tira Whakamātaki. The paper stated:
“Whilst potential conflicts of interest have been carefully managed (for
example, research investments involving TTW members have been peer-
reviewed by non-TTW members of the Chal enge SLG, and by the ISAP), there
may stil be a perception of a conflict of interest from external parties,
particularly when TTW are the lead contractor. Having an MOU that clearly
lays out the expectations of both parties, and which can be pointed to if
questions are asked, wil be vital in Tranche 2”
• The Biological Heritage NSC Mana Rangatira governance group papers from 2 April
2020 “NDA” notes that contracts with Te Tira Whakamātaki Ltd should include
conflict of interest provisions and note that work is underway on preparing an NDA.
b. Any steps taken to manage or mitigate these conflicts.
Both BioHeritage and Ngā Rakau Taketake had policies and processes to manage conflicts of
interest:
• Col aboration Agreement - NZBH Collaboration-Agreement - New Zealand's
Biological Heritage Data Repository
• Ngā Rākau Taketake - Administration - Mana Rangatira (Governance Group) ToR -
New Zealand's Biological Heritage Data Repository
• Ngā Rākau Taketake - Administration - POLICY: Conflict of Interest policy - New
Zealand's Biological Heritage Data Repository
As noted above al personal, professional, and institutional conflicts of interest were required
to be declared in a detailed Interest Register.
Additional y for any strategic leadership/knowledge broker meetings where new proposals
or funding discussions arose, participants were reminded of the Conflict of Interest Policy. If
an individual had a conflict, they could respond to questions regarding the proposal or
potential funding but were not permitted to advocate for it in any way. Additional y, any
conflicted individual did not have voting rights on the proposal. A separate register for
strategic leadership and knowledge brokers was maintained a copy of Melanie Mark-
Shadbolt’s declaration of interests in this capacity is attached as “MMS Interest Register”.
Other parties’ personal information has been redacted for privacy reasons, but you wil note
that the register had been updated as new parties were added or additional interests needed
to be added.
It is also important to note that Landcare Research instructed BioHeritage that no
contractors were permitted to have financial delegations and for that reason Mel Mark-
Shadbolt never held any financial delegations in relation to BioHeritage funds.
In April 2020 Landcare Research New Zealand’s Limited’s board requested that the
BioHeritage Science Chal enge provide an assurance and risk report, including reviewing Bio
Heritage’s management of conflicts of interest. We have included the MWLR Board paper
seeking the review and the Board paper reporting back the findings. This final report
contained a separate assurance review which we had provided (limited only to the
information relating to Ms Mark-Shadbolt) which notes that Mel Mark-Shadbolt had stood
aside in relation to any funding decisions relating to TTW.
Question Three: A list of funding decisions in which Melanie Mark-Shadbolt was
involved, specifying:
As noted above and as per the Conflict of Interest Policy, Ms Mark-Shadbolt was not
involved in al ocating any funding to Te Tira Whakamātaki or any other organisation that she
had a declared conflict of interest with.
a.
Total amount of funding al ocated to Te Tira Whakamātaki or other
organisations she is affiliated with.
Led contractor for Oranga = $4,027,000 (Contracts - 1819-44-045 A, 2021-44-003 A,
Variations A1, A2, A3 and A4)
Lead collaborator for Project 1.1 = $318,000 (Contract - 1617-44-037 A3)
b.
Her role in the decision-making process for those grants.
As noted above, Ms Mark-Shadbolt was prohibited from being involved in al ocating funding
to Te Tira Whakamātaki or any other organisation that she had a declared conflict of interest
with by the Conflict of Interest Policy.
The Biological Heritage National Science Chal enge Decision Making & Investment Process
document: (investment-process.pdf) outlines the approval levels for al investments and
details the directors’ roles in this process. It applies to al research programmes under both
the BioHeritage National Science Chal enge (BioHeritage) and Ngā Rākau Taketake (NRT).
A ful list of Research Programmes for both the BioHeritage NRT can be found here:
Research Programmes - Biological Heritage NZ.
Question Four: Copies of financial audits or compliance reports assessing conflicts of
interest within these programs.
The MWLR Audit and Risk review is attached.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision.
Information about how to make a complaint is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz
or freephone 0800 802 602.
If you wish to discuss this decision with us, please feel free to contact
[email address].
Yours sincerely
Encl
Agendas
GG Interests Register
MMS Interest Register
Assurance and Risk
Apr 26 MWLR Tranche 2 Strategic Outcome
NDA
Investment Process
* Association – relationship (personal or professional) between potential external counter party and Biological Heritage National Science Chal enge Senior
Leadership Group (SLG) Member that is of a tenure or standing that it could give rise to render the SLG member less than independent in his/her judgement of
alternatives and selection of the party. Close family members include spouse/partner, siblings, children, parents.
Updated:
added
updated to SLG - 17 DEC 2018
Updated Mels info Jan 19
Jan 19 UPDATED WITH
INFO
Jan 19
ALL OK
INTERIM LEADERS COMPLETED
Updated
from email - 7 May 2019
BOARD 20/04/26
DECISION
MWLR TRANCHE 2 STRATEGIC OUTCOME/NGĀ RAKAU TAKETAKE
INVESTMENTS - ASSURANCE
Purpose
To provide an update and seek the Board approval for approach to assurance over BioHeritage
Tranche 2 Strategic Outcome / Ngā Rakau Taketake investments
Key Points
•
The Board received BioHeritage Tranche 2 Strategic Outcome/Ngā Rakau Taketake investments
from Mana Rangatira at the April Board meeting.
•
The Board discussed the paper and agreed they were happy to endorse the paper subject to the
external review being carried out to ensure the process had met the required standards
•
I have subsequently had further conversations with the co-chairs (James Buwalda and Glenice
Paine) and Emily Parker which are summarised below.
•
A self-review (by Mana Rangatira) submitted to the Manaaki Whenua Audit & Risk Committee
is now proposed.
Recommendation
To approve the internal audit assurance to be provided:
•
By internal self-review, completed by the Challenge Leadership team and reviewed by Mana
Rangatira as part of each specific contract development.
•
The self-review to be submitted to the Manaaki Whenua Audit & Risk Committee.
•
Based on this review matters raised to the Board as appropriate by the Audit & Risk Committee
on an exception basis.
•
Approval to sign contracts within the total investment to be delegated to the Audit & Risk
Committee by the Board
I note the Board retains the right to request an external probity review, following specific contract
analysis.
Health and Safety
No direct impacts
Risk and Financial Implications
The purpose of this approach is to manage risk related specifically to the investment and contracting
process related to Tranche 2 Strategic Outcome/Ngā Rakau Taketake investments.
Author: Nigel Thomson
Page: 1 of 2
Date:
28 April 2020
Proposed Approach
The proposed approach is summarised as:
•
Mana Rangatira will complete a self-review of the process including requesting the Challenge
leadership to document key elements of the process.
•
The key focus areas for the self-review are documented in the below table:
Quality of proposed
Provider’s capacity to
Conflict(s)-of-interest
Pricing/Value-for-money
Significant risks
activity
deliver
Confirm Science
Assessment that the
Confirm policy has
Specific consideration of
Any significant risks for (for
quality review carried
contract party(ies) have
been applied
value-for-money
awareness/attention of Mana
out and
capacity to deliver
Rangatira)
(organisation and key
Conflicts identified and
Significant pricing
Any significant issues
individuals)
declarations completed
consideration(s)?
highlighted
Documented plan for
How have these been
identified material
addressed?
conflicts.
Confirmation of
documented of
evaluation process
outcomes and
assessment minutes
How have these been
managed?
•
Mana Rangatira will discuss this framework and may add to the focus areas.
•
The review will be completed progressively for each contract / strategic objective, documenting:
o
historic considerations – for example management of conflict of interest during strategic
objective setting, project and lead organisation selection
o
prospective considerations – for example considering Pricing/Value-for-money as
contract proposals are negotiated and contracted
•
Mana Rangatira will review and critique the summary documentation of the table
•
Mana Rangatira and/or the MWLR Board reserve the right to conduct further and external
reviews (ie probity review).
•
The review of conflicts of interest will be assessed with specific reference to the BioHeritage
conflicts of interest policy (available publicly here) and the MWLR policy (both of which apply)
at each step of the process.
•
The completed framework will be provided in conjunction with each contract for approval and
signing.
•
It is proposed that this review be delegated to and MWLR’s Audit & Risk Committee as part of
each specific contract signing with an expectation that matters will be raised to the Board as
appropriate on an exception basis.
Author: Nigel Thomson
Page: 2 of 2
Date:
28 April 2020
