Hutchison Paul: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2757] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to have another call on this very important Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I absolutely agree with the previous speaker that Mary Scholtens’ review was a substantial and a significant one. I was not lucky enough to be on the Government Administration Committee that deliberated on the bill but I have taken the report out and I note that it is indeed very substantial. One of the points she made was that the Office of the Ombudsmen would also be able to help to conduct initial screenings to determine whether the nature of the complaint was such as to warrant a referral. She made the comment that after noting the jurisdictions of a number of appropriate authorities the ministerial also noted that no single agency currently has a clear perceived role of providing advice and counselling to individuals considering making disclosures outside their employing organisations. 
So that was the situation in 2003. It was noted there were gaps in the jurisdiction between these authorities and there was a need to maintain and develop the coordination and transfer of referrals between authorities to ensure those existing resources are used effectively and that continued coordination between agencies and the provisions made for counselling and facilitating disclosure were important. It is quite significant that 4 years later when the New Zealand State Services Commission Integrity and Conduct Survey was carried out we learn that only 23 percent of our district health boards knew about the provisions of the Act. 
But I go on further than that. The other revealing finding was there was less belief at the district health board level that senior and middle management would exhibit and practise elements of ethical behaviour. I think that is extremely concerning for all of us here. Undoubtedly this was the ethos of the Labour Government of the time and it must fall squarely and fairly on it. When Darien Fenton talked about the reparation that Deborah Houston finally received it was in a climate that was quite unsatisfactory. 
The third disturbing conclusion from the survey was that although district health board employees report breaches of standards at about the same rate as the State Services Commission average their reasons for not reporting are typically more fear-based. That is again a very strong reason why this bill is so important and why the various provisions that we have here are set to give the whistleblower extra help both through the Ombudsmen facilitating and through the various other amendments to the principal Act. These include the technical failures to comply or refer to the Act as set out in new section 6A inserted by clause 6 and in clause 4 where a person who works for the organisation as a volunteer without reward or expectation of reward for that work is also included in the definition of an employee. Public official of course means a person who is an employee of a public sector organisation. 
If we continue we find that Part 1 answers many of the problems that were identified by Mary Scholtens and addresses many of the problems that were identified in the Public Service survey that was carried out. I want to emphasise just how important are the various aspects of this bill. I refer to new section 15 inserted by clause 8 whereby the Ombudsmen may escalate disclosures to an appropriate authority or Minister or investigate disclosure and here of course the Ombudsmen may refer the disclosure to a Minister of the Crown. 
Part 1 agreed to.