Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2728] 
Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1  Amendments to principal Act 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 1 of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill in this Committee stage I first preface my speech with a couple of comments perhaps as a reminder that the bill before us gives effect to the recommendations of a review held in 2003 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. The review found there were delays and also inconsistencies around the legislative procedure of the Act. As well as that there was confusion—there still is until we remedy it—about some of the definitions and a general lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity. 
If we think about the circumstances under which an individual might need the protection of the Act we realise that it is not going to be a happy time for that individual. Let us take the example of somebody who works in a Government department or perhaps a district health board. If that person identifies a degree of wrongdoing on the part of somebody else with that employer he or she has to go through a considerable degree of soul-searching before being prepared to blow the whistle as it were. That is not an easy thing for an individual to do and we know that because history has shown us that sometimes whistleblowers can themselves become victims. So any steps that this Committee takes to improve this legislation can only be good for all of us but also most particularly for those people who are prepared to stand up and speak out against fraud or wrongdoing when they see it in front of them. I can only reflect—with regret probably—on the circumstances surrounding the huge fraud that occurred in our Otago District Health Board. If somebody had had the confidence or knowledge to speak out about that fraud then perhaps the people of Otago might have had more hip operations or cataract operations. 
In speaking to Part 1 of the bill I will refer now to new section 6A “Technical failure to comply with or refer to Act” which is inserted by clause 6. When someone is a whistleblower or wishes to speak out about something that person is not always in a great position to comply fully with the Act. So I am pleased to see in new section 6A(1) that “A disclosure of information is not prevented from being a protected disclosure of information for the purposes of this Act merely because—” the person does not follow the process correctly. 
I will give an example. A person whom we will call Person A—this is the example given within the bill—is an employee of a certain organisation. The internal procedure for that organisation if Person A wishes to make a complaint or impart some information is to go to the organisation’s human resources manager using a particular form. But in reality a person who has some information to convey may not have a great relationship with the human resources manager and may not be particularly familiar with competent in or happy about filling in forms so may instead provide the information to the organisation’s chief executive. That does not strictly comply with the procedures under that organisation’s policy but that person may be otherwise substantially complying with the legislation. So the failure to comply in those circumstances is to be regarded as merely technical and under new section 6A the disclosure will still be “a protected disclosure … for the purposes of this Act”. 
If we think back to the situation of somebody who was working in an organisation particularly a large organisation we can ask whom that person could turn to. Perhaps he or she had discovered that something was very wrong within that organisation had done a degree of soul-searching I am quite sure and felt that the person to go to—the person with whom he or she felt most comfortable—was the chief executive. Well so be it—for the purposes of this legislation the failure to comply will be regarded as being merely technical and the disclosure as I have mentioned before will still be treated as a protected disclosure. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be rising to speak on the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. Funnily enough it is another bill of the previous Labour Government after the last one we were discussing. This one is in the name of the Hon David Parker my excellent colleague. So it is good to see that the National Government has picked up this important bill and is taking it through its stages. We await with interest the new ideas from such up-and-comers as Simon Bridges and Amy Adams—we are waiting for their new ideas to come forward. 
This bill is important and Part 1 deals with its substance. We can just remind ourselves that the purpose of the bill is to ensure that the Protected Disclosures Act works properly so that those people who are whistleblowers those who are able to see wrongdoing or corruption are supported to blow the whistle on those matters and not feel there will be consequences against them or that the process works against them. I think that that is a very laudable goal and Part 1 outlines the ways in which that will happen. 
The timing of this bill is in fact perfect; right now plenty of potential whistleblowers are out there in the Public Service. Public servants were told by National in the election campaign that National would cap not cut the Public Service. National was going to keep the services that were there under Labour; that was what would happen. But we have seen consistently since National came into office job cuts in the Public Service. We have seen important positions in places like the Inland Revenue Department the Ministry of Social Development the Ministry of Justice and the Tertiary Education Commission cut out by National against its election promise. In the end the people of New Zealand will suffer because the services that New Zealanders rely on will be cut. We know that people in those public sector organisations need to be protected and that is what this bill will do. They need to be protected from a National Government that is on a slash-and-burn exercise. It is under the radar admittedly but it is still a slash-and-burn exercise. 
I can tell the Committee that plenty of people in the public sector are already blowing the whistle and this bill will provide them with further protections. But what they are blowing the whistle on is the National Government going through and looking at each department and agency—not looking at the kinds of services it should be providing but rather looking at whom it can cut out. The National Government is not thinking about what New Zealanders would actually benefit from in terms of public services but about how it can cut jobs. That is the agenda of the National Government here—to simply reduce the number of people working in the public sector regardless of the services they actually provide. So we need protections for those people. We need protections so they can blow the whistle and point out the kinds of wrongdoing. 
It would be interesting to hear a Minister perhaps take a call to tell us whether public servants who see serious wrongdoing in their department—as people’s jobs are cut out and as people are excluded from their particular roles in Government agencies and ministries—would be covered by legislation like this. It would be an interesting thing to hear a Minister take a call on. 
But we know that in public sector agencies from time to time there is a need to address these sorts of concerns; there is a need to blow the whistle. One of the things we learnt from the Protected Disclosures Act in its earlier incarnations was that although it was a good Act not enough was done to ensure that it could be used properly. In particular— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Under a Labour Government that would have been happening. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It was reviewed I tell Ms Dean; that is exactly right. It was reviewed by the Labour Government after being brought in in 2000. It was reviewed in 2003 and it is a good thing to see how an Act goes how it works. The changes were then brought forward to this House. 
One of the most important changes is in the enhancement of the role of the Ombudsmen to provide good information not only to the people who are blowing the whistle but also to the agencies and departments where those people work. Under new section 6B to be inserted in the principal Act by clause 6 the Ombudsmen’s role will be extended so that they can provide guidance and information to employees. This is important because a lot of people do not necessarily know what all the rules are—what serious wrongdoing is and how they can bring matters forward. In the end this provision will mean that the Ombudsmen will have the ability both to weed out complaints that perhaps should not be going through under the Protected Disclosures Act and to shed light on those areas where people are unsure and need some reassurance that they can take matters forward. Section 6B does that by enhancing the Ombudsmen’s role. New section 6C which is also to be inserted by clause 6 also allows the Ombudsmen to request information on the internal procedures of an agency to see whether they are up to scratch. 
Simon Bridges 
: It’s a great section. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is a great new section I say to Mr Bridges because it means that agencies will now be required to have proper internal procedures. People will have to follow those procedures if they are to lay a complaint under this legislation. At the moment not everybody knows where to find those procedures or even whether they exist at all. The Ombudsmen can now look into those procedures and ensure that people will have that information. 
New section 15B which is to be inserted by clause 8 further enhances the Ombudsmen’s powers because it means that they can review and guide investigations. There has been a suggestion that from time to time investigations get shuffled around within a department. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. Indeed Part 1 which we are talking about is the substantial part. As stated in the commentary “The bill will give the Ombudsmen a larger guiding reviewing and investigating role in relation to disclosures of serious wrongdoing with the Office of the Ombudsmen facilitating a collaborative cross-agency approach.” 
It is very important to realise the genesis of this bill of how it came about. It amends the 2007 amendment Act which amended the original Protected Disclosures Act of 2000. I acknowledge here the work of Mary Scholtens QC in reviewing the original Act in 2003; she pointed out that there was limited information available about how the Act was working at the time. I might say that by 2006 only eight cases had been brought under the Act into the public arena and this is probably part of the reason why it needs modifying now. Mary Scholtens said it appeared that the Act had had only limited use that some of that use had been inappropriate and that no significant issues were raised by the major employer or employee groups. She went on to say however that a number of important themes had emerged and that it was unlikely the identity of a person making a protected disclosure would remain confidential. That of course is of extreme concern. She also said: “It appears to me that where the provisions of the Act have been incorporated into an organisation’s culture of risk management and at institutions relating to appropriate ethical conduct the procedures worked well.” 
It seems rather rich that the previous speaker Grant Robertson from the Labour Party suggested that— 
Simon Bridges 
: He’s not rich. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: No maybe not—he is a humble man indeed. The part about it that is rich is the fact that the Labour Government spent so long in getting on to doing something about this issue. Here they were with the Public Disclosures Act in 2000 and the review in 2003 yet it was not until 2007 that this amendment bill was actually brought into the House under the Labour Government. 
Hon David Parker 
: It was a serious bill—a bill that needed serious thought. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well we hear the Hon David Parker opposite but this is a classic example of the languid lazy Labour Government taking months—years—before it finally gets around to bringing important legislation into the House. This is a classic example. There the bill languished from 2007 and right through 2008. Fortunately the new National Government which is absolutely out to make a difference has taken the bill up with alacrity. Here it is today and it is a great pleasure to be speaking on it. 
The National Government does indeed support this very important amendment bill. We expect that with the better tools provided by this amendment bill Government agencies should be able to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner and will be able to hold the Government to account. 
It was during the time of the previous Labour Government of course that there was the shocking situation in Hawke’s Bay where Mrs Deborah Houston was unable to successfully raise her case of whistleblowing without being identified. She was acutely aware of the importance of getting this disclosure legislation right and I guess that this is one of the reasons why it has come before us this evening. Protecting whistleblowers is not just a matter for legislative change; it requires the ongoing operational improvements that are absolutely at the essence of the functioning of this bill. There is no doubt that silence is not in the public interest. The very fact that there were only eight cases until 2006 is a stark reminder of how the previous legislation was just not working. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. It is an excellent bill. As my colleague Grant Robertson said it was introduced in the name of the wonderful Minister of State Services in the Labour Government David Parker. 
I acknowledge the Government Administration Committee which considered this bill. For the benefit of the previous speaker Paul Hutchison I say that the bill spent some time at the select committee. That committee was chaired by Mr Shane Ardern. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: He did his best. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: He did a very good job and I think he would be fairly insulted to hear the member talking about it languishing. In fact it took a Labour Government to bring in any sort of protective disclosures in the first place after what happened in the 1990s to Neil Pugmire at Lake Alice Hospital. It took a Labour Government to do something about that and to recognise that a climate of fear had developed in the 1990s and that there was an appalling culture in the public sector where people were afraid to speak out. This amendment bill and the Protected Disclosures Act have an underlying principle of fair and reasonable treatment for those who seek to speak up about serious wrongdoing and who in doing so are potentially putting their jobs at risk. 
The issues that gave rise to the original Act are particularly important in today’s circumstances with the economic downturn. As my colleague Grant Robertson observed the Government is hell-bent on taking the knife to our Public Service jobs. I particularly want to mention the 6000 workers in Auckland who work for local government who are fearful for their jobs who have enormous uncertainty and who have a Government that is not following previous examples of rolling them over to be employed by the new local body for a decent period of time so that things can bed in. I think we will see some real fear. I hope they will be brave enough to blow the whistle if corruption emerges particularly if we have the sort of— 
Grant Robertson 
: What if your job’s going to go? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well that is the problem. That is the thing that really worries me about it. I think it is worth recording again the roll-call of job cuts that we have seen and the impact that they have on people who have been prepared to speak out: 86 jobs at the Ministry for the Environment 88 at the Ministry of Justice 250 at the Inland Revenue Department up to 500 at the Ministry of Social Development 22 at the State Services Commission 32 at the National Library and 76 at the Tertiary Education Commission. Those job cuts are just the beginning. This Government is just getting started. We should add to that the sinking-lid policies particularly in the district health boards across New Zealand. The number of hospital administration staff being employed is capped at the level in December 2008. A lot of workers—a lot of whanau—are facing a miserable winter because this Government does not believe that public sector jobs are worth saving. 
We have had 120-odd jobs saved in the private sector because of the 9-day working fortnight and thank goodness for that. It is a good thing those jobs have been saved and that is thanks to the unions which negotiated a fair deal for those workers. But around 1000 jobs in the public sector are not worth saving. They do not qualify for any Government assistance. There is this nonsense about backroom workers—bureaucrats—who are ineffective and do not do anything. The National Party really pushed that throughout the election campaign. It is not fair and it is not right. The Government needs to recognise that people are the most important asset of organisations and that the skills and knowledge of public sector workers are as much a part of public infrastructure as roads hospitals and school buildings are. I want to know where the investment in them is. 
Protected disclosures in this environment will be difficult for workers. Speaking up will be frowned upon. When jobs are up for grabs keeping one’s head down will be the best approach. I am fearful for the Public Service and for New Zealand’s reputation for being No. 1 in the international transparency stakes. I am fearful about where we are heading with our very very good Public Service which after all is about providing services to the public. It is not about providing jobs for people though that is important; it is about providing services to the New Zealand public which needs them even more in this economic climate. That is why Labour supports this bill and the boosting of protections in Part 1. We think it will make it easier for whistleblowers to bring serious wrongdoing to light. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take a call in the Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill after the impassioned speech by Dr Paul Hutchison on this significant and serious topic and after what I thought were interesting contributions by Darien Fenton and Grant Robertson. I wondered how Grant would manage to talk about cuts to the bureaucracy in this debate but he did it well and I admire him for his skill. 
Bills like this one are important and it is important that we have a whistleblowing bill. David Shearer is whistle-blowing right now about what has been happening in the Labour Party and about its secret agenda in relation to the private military. Through him we see the kind of example of what we need to do and why we need to improve laws like this. 
It is interesting to look at the background to this legislation. I agree that the primary legislation came in under Labour in 2000. We had a review led by a very able Queen’s Counsel to look at what we could do to improve this bill and now—not under a Labour Government but under a National Government—this amendment bill has been brought in. The bill uses the term “protected disclosures” which is the term that has been used around the Western World where similar bills have been introduced. However as I say in common parlance we talk about whistle-blowing. 
It is important that we improve the primary legislation because at heart what this bill is saying—and what Part 1 gives effect to—is that in New Zealand we do not want to live in some sort of Soviet-style satellite State where there is a climate of fear. I know that Chris Hipkins would quite like to have that situation in Rimutaka but we do not like that in the National Party. We do not want a Soviet-style satellite State; we want things to be open and we want things to be exposed to light. That is why we are serious about improving the legislation. 
This bill does a couple of things. In essence it enhances the role of the Ombudsman. I am a big fan of the Office of the Ombudsman; I think that office provides a good solution to many issues of Government and I will come back to how the bill enhances that role if I have time. The second thing this bill does very well is that it makes it easier for whistleblowers to speak out and for organisations to investigate what has gone on following disclosures by whistleblowers. 
In Part 1 where the substance of this bill is we see that things are made easier for whistleblowers through provisions such as clause 5 and new sections 6A and 6B. I will not take Committee members through the detail but they provide— 
Grant Robertson 
: Go on! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Would members like me to? 
Grant Robertson 
: Why not. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: All right. Clause 5(2) add new section 6(3) which states: “If an employee of an organisation believes on reasonable grounds that the information he or she discloses is about serious wrongdoing in or by that organisation but the belief is mistaken” that employee will nevertheless be protected. That is a good thing; that is reasonable. Where whistleblowers are acting in good faith but are wrong they will be protected if they have been doing it in a reasonable way. That is right. I think everyone in this Chamber would say that is right. 
New section 6A which my colleague Jacqui Dean has talked about states that technical failures to comply with the Act will not necessarily mean that the whistleblower is hung out to dry. A very good example is given in new section 6A(1)(b) which refers to “Person A” being an employee of “Organisation B” and talks about the internal procedures for receiving and dealing with information about serious wrongdoing. Although Person A does not comply with those procedures to the letter of the law in the example provided the failure is technical. Under this bill that person will be protected and I think that is absolutely right. New section 6A(2) backs up what we see at the end of the bill as well in that there is no contracting out of this legislation. That is a good thing. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Fundamentally the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill is about accountability and the abuse of power and I think we want to consider that for a moment. Jacqui Dean talked just before about the Otago District Health Board; I thought that was a really good example of where some serious wrongdoing was uncovered and because it was uncovered was able to be dealt with. One of the important aspects of the protected disclosures legislation is that the people who do that kind of uncovering of wrongdoing can be protected and do not lose their jobs. What is really important too of course is that the people who then fix up the mess created by that do not get sacked as well. That was certainly not so in the case with the Otago District Health Board which Jacqui Dean mentioned because the chairperson who then intervened and cleaned up the mess was sacked for political reasons by the current Minister of Health. That person did not get due fair process but was simply sacked because the new Minister of Health wanted to swagger around to try to prove the point that he was in charge of things. 
I would also like to talk a little bit about some of the other people who might be covered by this legislation. It is always good to put these things in a context so I will talk—hypothetically—about a staff member in a Minister’s office who was concerned about serious wrongdoing within that office. For example if the staff member had uncovered and had knowledge of the fact that the Minister had failed to declare a shareholding in a business he or she was using his or her ministerial capacity to promote we would want to ensure that the person who disclosed that had some protection. If the staff member wanted to disclose the fact that the Minister had used a diplomatic passport to travel overseas to promote a business in which he or she had a financial interest we would want the person who disclosed that to be protected. If the staff member wanted to use the legislation in order to disclose that the Minister had failed to disclose that companies he or she was associated with were being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office we would want the staff member to be protected. If the staff member wanted to use the protected disclosures legislation to disclose that the Minister he or she worked for was in fact in charge of a bill that altered the powers of a local authority for which that Minister had been identified as the lead legal adviser we would want that staff member to be protected if he or she decided to disclose that. Ultimately this legislation is about power the abuse of power and protecting people who disclose the abuse of power—and those who abuse power include Ministers. 
I want to alert members to some of the changes that this bill puts in place. Under clause 4(2) new paragraph (g) is added to section 3 of the Act to extend the definition of an “employee” to be someone who works “as a volunteer without reward or expectation of reward for that work.” A good example of that would be parliamentary interns. They fit that definition: they work in a Minister’s office “as a volunteer without reward or expectation of reward for that work.” and they see an awful lot. So they would be in a position to disclose information about the gross misuse and abuse of power by a Minister of the Crown. This legislation extends the protection of the Protected Disclosures Act to them and that is something I think we should be in favour of because ultimately there has to be high standards of conduct within the Public Service. 
It is importance for public confidence in the Public Service that the public knows there are high standards of conduct in the Public Service but is it not regrettable that we cannot say that about the Ministers in this Government at this present point in time? 
Even though it has been disclosed through one means or another that there has been serious misconduct by a Minister in this Government still the Prime Minister continues to refuse to do something about it. He has called the Minister “stupid” in public. He has given him a bollocking. He has said that the Minister has no more lifelines and no more chances yet every time there is another revelation about what that Minister is involved with the Minister continues to hold his ministerial warrant and he is given one final warning and then another “final” warning. 
We want to ensure that anybody who has information about that kind of thing—whether he or she works in a Minister’s office as a staff member a volunteer or an intern—should be able to make a protected disclosure without fear of retribution or reprimand. I think that is a very important part of this legislation. This bill was introduced by the previous Labour Government so of course we will be supporting it. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I will pick up on some of the comments of the previous speaker but first will talk about the bill in the context of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. As in previous speeches of mine on various issues I have acknowledged and again salute a woman known as Ms Deborah Houston who is known as the whistleblower in her involvement with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. I have talked of the difficulties she has had and her allegations of retaliation the restructuring out of her job and the restructuring of departments. All have helped lead to the bill we have before us today. 
I will be speaking around clause 6 in relation to the role of the Ombudsmen. I just note that the whistleblower known as Ms Deborah Houston has actually received an apology. I would like to quote from the  
Dominion Post 
: 
“The whistleblower in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board conflicts of interest saga has finally received an apology from the board’s chief executive.” I acknowledge the outgoing chief executive for doing that although he is no longer with the board. That fact puts it in context after this particular person did the whistle-blowing. At the meeting this person identified herself as the whistleblower and therein lies all the problems around communications and maybe confusion of process in that case. Without relitigating the issue which took probably almost a year to resolve I can tell members that the whistleblower contacted the board chairman under the Protected Disclosures Act over allegations that she had made on a conflict of interest issue and that allegation led to a lengthy Ministry of Health investigation which I have alluded to. I just note that the elected members of the board were recently reappointed in a governance capacity. 
I would like to pick up on one point and will quote shortly from a speech made by Deborah Houston to the Australasian Compliance Institute entitled “Protection for Whistleblowers: What needs to be done?”. I will later ask for leave of the House to table the document because this matter is serious. The previous speaker tried to get a bit clever about the Otago District Health Board but this person has suffered emotional financial and reputational distress because of—to put it gently—unclear shall we say procedures in our hospital in Hawke’s Bay in regard to the board and some senior management around how protected disclosures should work. 
Let me read out the conclusion of her speech: “What happened to me and what happened to the board of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board should never happen again. It is incumbent upon the Crown to do the right thing by its employees its elected public officials and of course its ministerial appointees. The public expects no less.” I would be incredibly surprised if anyone in this Chamber disagreed with that statement. It continues: “When all the facts are looked at I believe it is clear that the right thing was not done by me or more latterly by the board. I have continued to fight for accountability for what has been done. I have done so because I believe that the public administration in New Zealand must be honest must be transparent and that its tradition of political neutrality must be maintained.” That speech was made on 21 August 2008; the issue began in January 2006. The speech was made more than 2 years after that person started the ball rolling and as an individual fought against a bureaucratic machine to effect change. That change we see in the bill before the House right now. I do not want to relitigate the issue; we have all moved on— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I bet you don’t! 
CRAIG FOSS 
: —but I will if the member wants me to because the man who said he was running the show actually did a lot of damage to Labour. He is now on Labour’s front bench. I am trying to respectfully talk about the person who actually suffered. That is why this bill is before us today so that people do not innocently suffer because of the misinterpretation of previous legislation. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Then tell the truth. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: I can be gentle or I can go hard. I will try to go as gently as I possibly can because we have all moved on but if those members want me to I will go hard. I will be quite interested to see some of the other combatants in this debate. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I want to return to where we were slightly earlier in the debate when talking about the Ombudsmen’s increased powers. In my earlier call I was talking about the Ombudsmen’s ability to review an investigation or guide an investigation that a public sector agency had under way. Under section 15A inserted by clause 8 of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill the Ombudsmen can take over an investigation in a department. They can take over that investigation if they believe for instance that the authority or the organisation has decided not to investigate the matter for some reason or it has decided that it cannot progress it in a reasonable time period or because the Ombudsmen do not believe that the agency is actually capable of doing that investigation because it is so closely aligned with them. 
It is probably helpful at this time to take an example of what that might be. What is the situation where that would occur? Could it be the case of an official who is working away diligently on a proposal that he or she has been told to work on—for example a cycleway because there are proposals about things such as cycleways—and has been told that that it is important and that it came from a significant event like the Job Summit? So the person has been working away on it and has been putting forward ideas and then he or she finds out all of a sudden that the other people who have been working on the cycleway idea are not there any more; they have gone because apparently the proposal is not going to be funded this year next year or the year after. Those people have gone those jobs have gone and the people are out of the way. That official might be very concerned about what is going on there—what kind of wrongdoing has been undertaken in that department. The official has the right to raise a complaint and we know that the Office of the Ombudsmen is now empowered to be able to say that the office will take over the investigation because that action is not appropriate. 
It just gives us cause for thought at this time to think about the kind of staffing that the Office of the Ombudsmen will require to be able to implement this bill. Four or five key new tasks are being given to the Office of the Ombudsmen and they are the ability to take over an investigation the ability to look into people’s internal procedures on these issues and the need to provide information to people who wish to be whistleblowers. That is a lot of extra work. I think National members might want to take a call and tell us whether the funding for the Office of the Ombudsmen will be protected under this Government. Over the last few months we have consistently seen cuts into the Public Service cuts into agencies that we would not think would be taken down—like the Inland Revenue Department. If people think they have had problems getting hold of staff in that department in the past it will get worse under the National Government. We know that 250 staff will be cut from the Inland Revenue Department. 
Who is to say there will not be staff cut from the Office of the Ombudsmen? That office has been given an increased role under this bill so one would think there would be no way that staff numbers in the Office of the Ombudsmen could be cut. But the Inland Revenue Department was given an increased role. The department has been asked to look after tax changes changes to KiwiSaver and a new independent earner rebate. We would think it would need staff. But no! The National Government came into power and those 250 staff were told: “Out the door!” even though the department is doing the significant and important work that ordinary taxpayers expect it to do and from which they expect to receive good services. 
The Office of the Ombudsmen which has increased roles under this bill is the kind of agency that we would expect to be funded properly. Part 1 covers the extensions to the role of the Office of the Ombudsmen and we would expect the office to be funded properly. But we have no guarantee from this National Government that it will fund the office properly. Perhaps a speaker on the other side of the Chamber would like to take a call and guarantee that the Office of the Ombudsmen will receive the additional resources that it needs to fulfil its obligations which are outlined in Part 1. We have not seen any commitment from the National Government to adequately fund those kinds of key public services. 
We remind ourselves again that the Ombudsmen can take over an investigation. I think that is an important point because a lot of Public Service officials will be worried about their jobs under this Government—worried that their jobs will be cut. Will they be encouraged in that environment to blow the whistle? If they uncover a wrongdoing will they be encouraged to say they want to do something about that? We have no guarantee of that. It is vitally important that the Ombudsmen can move in where an employee is concerned about his or her ability to blow the whistle—and they will be concerned in the environment that the National Government is creating. The Ombudsmen’s enhanced powers are important they are significant and they must be resourced because the Office of the Ombudsmen is a key part of our democracy. We have seen other key parts of the Public Service run down—the Inland Revenue Department the Ministry of Social Development. It cannot happen to the Office of the Ombudsmen and we need a guarantee that the Ombudsmen will have the resources to implement the additional powers they will have under Part 1. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 In this Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill it is appropriate that we give due consideration to the extended powers and authority of the Office of the Ombudsmen because it underpins the credibility and integrity of the amendment bill. The Office of the Ombudsmen is an Office of Parliament that is highly regarded and it has an independence that will help the procedures of the amendment bill as it is put into the body of the Act to work more effectively. 
We have talked a lot about the amendments. I think it is appropriate that we go back a little bit and look at what the Act currently says in section 7—the point that Jacqui Dean made when she spoke of the accuracy that a person had to follow in making a disclosure. I direct members’ attention to section 7 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 which states: “Disclosure must be made in accordance with internal procedures”. Just by the nature of that it challenges us as to how accurate we have to be in making disclosures. Section 7(1) states: “An employee must disclose information in the manner provided by internal procedures established by and published in the organisation or the relevant part of the organisation for receiving and dealing with information about serious wrongdoing.” I draw the attention of the Chamber to that as that in itself makes it very difficult to cross every “t” and dot every “i” and to clear the hurdles and hoops that are placed in the way of a person who could be a whistleblower. In technical situations section 6A of the bill inserted by clause 6 is appropriate. A person has to proceed with a reasonable degree of accuracy—roughly in accord with the process. We do not want to get bogged down in absolute detail. If the procedures say that we should report to the human resources manager but we actually choose to go to the chief executive officer then that should suffice. In their role the Ombudsmen are there to oversee the process and I think we can take great comfort from that. 
National supported the review that highlighted such points because in effect it is about the smooth running of that process. The eight cases where the Act had been previously used underlined the officious approach that the existing Act has. The role of the Ombudsmen to walk alongside and support a person—who would be for all good intents and purposes a whistleblower—is highly appropriate. Not rushing on too far with the intricacies of how it would work in the workplace but looking just at the very mechanics of it I believe the amendments are appropriate. It will help the public to have greater confidence in the Public Service and this is what it is all about. Our democracy is very often underpinned by the independence of the Office of the Ombudsmen and that is reassuring. Silence is not in the public interest when it comes to the functioning of our Public Service. 
When we look at this Act we see that the early parts of it are very succinct and clear. But this bill adds to the smooth running of the process around declaring information ensuring that New Zealand’s democracy is upheld and ensuring that there is clarity and transparency in the various organisations that we so depend on. We congratulate the Government Administration Committee on the hard work it has put in in bringing this bill forward. It will sit comfortably inside the Act and it will enhance the Act to progress matters around transparency. We have heartfelt sympathy for the person who had the courage to blow the whistle on the situation that occurred in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 In speaking to the Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill I am reminded by Part 1 that we are amending the principal Act brought in in 2000. If we reflect on why it came in at the time it is interesting to note that it is often the health sector where great use is made of this particular Act. I cannot remember the very brave man’s name; it used to be etched on my memory. [ 
Interruption 
] Neil Pugmire—I knew one of my colleagues would bring the name forward—was a very brave mental health nurse I believe from Canterbury or somewhere—[ 
Interruption 
]—from Wanganui who unfortunately did not have the protection of this legislation but he is the man who brought this gap in legislation to the attention of this House. 
What happened in 2000 and what probably happened during the course of 1999—because the legislation was enacted in 2000—was that Neil Pugmire had tried to use all of the processes available to him within his hospital setting to raise concerns about the lack of resources and the lack of proper attention and care being given to mental health patients in Wanganui at the time. He was doing that using his advocacy role as a health professional as we would all want him to do—as all health professionals are educated and trained to do when they go through their training. What did he get for using his advocacy role as we would want him to do? He lost his job. He was sacked because when the internal processes did not give him a result and his issues were not being heard he dared to take the matter further and alerted authorities over and above the hospital board about the concerns that he was raising. He went public with his concerns about how mental health patients were being treated at the time. He got sacked because there was no such legislation in 1999 that protected his interests even though he had not only the right but the responsibility as a health professional to advocate for the patients and the people he was seeing and to require a better service for them. 
In 2000 the incoming Labour Government brought in the Protected Disclosures Act as we now know it. It is timely that some 8 or 9 years later we are reflecting again on this legislation because that was the first time we had had such a protection in law. We have discovered through the passage of time that the Act does need amending and Part 1 enhances the role of the Ombudsmen. I think it is timely for another reason not only because approximately 9 years have elapsed since this legislation was first drafted but also because in 2009 I am certain there is something of a climate of fear particularly among the public service in New Zealand. Therefore strengthening the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill at a time when public servants fear for their jobs is important. Public servants know that the knife is out for their positions and such a climate must make it extremely difficult for them to address any issues that concern them. There is a climate of fear. We know that public service jobs are under the knife and that must make it exceptionally difficult for public servants to raise any concerns that they might have. 
Many of my colleagues have raised very good examples of the sort of work undertaken by public servants at the moment. Those public servants may have some concerns about that work. They may not be able to do the work on the cycleway because the Minister of Finance has said that there is no money available for it this year next year or the year after that. So a public servant required to do work on that piece of work might have concerns that he or she wants to raise. My other colleagues have raised many other examples. It is very timely that we look again to the gaps that are in the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill—very timely in the current environment. 
I want to speak very briefly on how Part 1 enhances the role of the Ombudsman. The bill will give the Ombudsman the ability to review an employer’s protected disclosures procedure. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise and take a call in the Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I want to focus in particular on Part 1 but before I do that I will just take a broader perspective on the reasons for the amendments as contained in Part 1. The amendments in Part 1 to the principal Act the Protected Disclosures Act are intended to provide some improvements to the original legislation. 
As we know the original Act was passed by the previous Labour Government in 2000. At that time the person who precipitated that legislation was a fellow by the name of Neil Pugmire as the previous speaker Sue Moroney has said. Mr Pugmire was a nurse at Lake Alice Hospital. He expressed concern to management over the release of dangerous psychiatric patients into the community. He was suspended and later dismissed for his actions. It is very interesting to think that the person who precipitated the legislation Mr Neil Pugmire stated in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 in December 2000 that even the new law passed then would not be enough to protect employee whistleblowers from having their careers tainted. So it was pretty clear right from the outset that there were some flaws in the legislation that the Labour Government passed and a review was commenced by that same Government in 2003. 
The very eminent Queen’s Counsel Mary Scholtens conducted a considered and thoughtful review that highlighted the need for improvements. That review was 6 years ago. It has taken 6 years to take the very good ideas that Ms Scholtens’ review highlighted draft them into the bill introduce it to the House send it to the Government Administration Committee have the committee report back to the House and come to the position that we are in now—6 long years. Such is the importance that the languishing lazy languid long out-of-touch Labour Government placed on that amendment. 
Frankly I am amazed that the Labour Opposition should raise the issues surrounding the $17.8 million fraud at the Otago District Health Board in the context of this debate. The fraud was described in the House as the single largest employee fraud in State sector history. I am advised that not only was it the single largest fraud in State sector history but also it was the single largest employee fraud in any organisation at any time in this country. So the Labour Opposition is using to make a point a case where during the 5 long years of the single biggest employee fraud in this country no one blew the whistle. Not only that but also it appears that many people were asleep with the whistles in their mouths. 
As we know the genesis of this legislation came out of the health care setting. In that context many health employees are required to raise issues of considerable patient concern and quite rightly they need to be able to do that in an environment where they can be protected from the consequences of doing so. I think we have seen in society a move towards that framework. We have a number of pieces of legislation that do that not the least of which is the Health and Disability Commissioner Act. 
I will also touch on a couple of other examples where in a health care setting people have been required to blow the whistle at their peril. A general practitioner in Southland was contacted by the police in 1995 and asked whether he believed his patient should hold a firearms licence. The reply from the doctor was a brief note saying that he did not think so. Three things happened subsequently. The person did not get his firearms licence but the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee formally censured the doctor for breaching privacy. The fellow who was the subject of the application went on to be jailed for 2 years on a charge that was scaled down from attempted murder to one of causing grievous bodily harm. There are a number of other examples where people have in the best interests of the people they advocate for raised issues and been punished for them. 
I think the intent of the Act as it was passed is a very good one. These amendments need to be made to improve that legislation. I look forward to that happening. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: In accordance with the decision of the Business Committee for the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to make his valedictory statement I suspend the Committee of the whole House for the Speaker to resume the Chair. 
Debate suspended.