Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for the Public Service): Just to be clear around the clauses the member's referring to the duty to notify the disclosure that their identity's going to be released before it's released applies to circumstances as listed under clause 16(2)(c) where that's required (i) for the effective investigation of the disclosure; or … (iii) to comply with the principles of natural justice." The two other grounds which it's not necessarily required for are where it's to prevent a serious risk to the public health public safety or the health and safety of an individual or the environment. In other words there's a sense of urgency required there in order to prevent something that's about to happen and so hence it might not be as practical to retrace all of the steps and notify the disclosure at that point. And of course where it's been passed on to a law enforcement agency. That was a change made through the process to make that very clear and to bring this into line with the Search and Surveillance Act of 2012 in terms of the definitions of what a law enforcement agency is.JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you. So I'd largely like to speak to our Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 133 even though we've had the indication from Minister Hipkins that there won't be support for it. But before I do that I'd just flag the question to the Minister: I'm interested in and want to acknowledge the change to clause 16A in his SOP which changes—and I'll read it out. So clause 16A is changed so that there need not be harm shown if information is released that might identify a discloser. Having been through the debates around the harmful digital communications recently and heard so many stories about the difficulty of proving that harm with actual sharing without consent in that instance—and in this instance the interference with the discloser's privacy is the harm. I was really pleased to see that amendment.But I am interested in and will now speak a bit to my SOP which adds a clause 18B which would put a requirement on employers to provide active support to people making a protected disclosure. And I want to acknowledge Professor Michael Macaulay and Kirsten Windelov at the Public Service Association who are experts in this area and have informed this SOP. I wish I could claim it was my own brilliance but it's not. They know this stuff and they helped me in the drafting of this because people are really disappointed at the limitations to this bill recognising that it's a really baby step. Proportionate to the risk it just doesn't feel enough as it is at the moment whereas this provision of putting protections around people disclosing is shown internationally to be one of the most effective measures that we can take.So what is in this SOP is if somebody is making a protected disclosure there's an onus on the employer to assess a risk: if there is any risk or what the risks are to that employee of retaliation or less favourable treatment; to do that risk assessment to that person—not to the organisation but to that person—and put protections around them to try and protect them from those risks; and then developing a support plan for them that identifies how those risks can be mitigated providing the employee with access to an independent support person. And we certainly heard through the Education and Workforce Committee—and if anybody else in the House was there through that committee some of the stories were just really harrowing. People were just hung out to dry and left by themselves in the wilderness trying to defend their reputation after attack after attack. But if the organisation has a requirement to protect them and put a support person alongside to help them deal with any attention that may come from it and to process it then we reduce the harm and the potential of the harm.Secondly if a disclosure's been made to keep the employee and independent support person informed of any steps taken in relation to the disclosure and that the employer must actively support the wellbeing of the employee from the time when they become aware of the disclosure or intended disclosure—this is not a resource-heavy thing. It's actually what's in the Public Service Commission's model guidance around speaking up. This is the standard in our public sector of what we expect from everyone. It's a framework to help ensure that every single workplace in this country gets the fact that it's not about the organisation at that point—that the focus to be able to ensure that this process works needs to be on the protection of the person who makes the disclosure.So I would really recommend this SOP to all parties in this House. In terms of the thing about this being the next step I do just want to go back to the point that this process started in 2016. There was consultation in 2018. I think we can do this. These steps are not a step too far they are just the next obvious step."