Hayes John: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hayes John: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2801] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I particularly commend the comments from my colleague in the Maori Party Te Ururoa Flavell and endorse them. I rise in support of this bill. Like my colleague from the Maori Party I too listened to the comments of David Parker and his justification for his party’s non-promotion of this bill. 
I commend Tony Ryall and the Government for introducing this bill and progressing it. In doing so we are promoting the public interest for two reasons. This bill will facilitate the disclosure and investigation of serious wrongdoing in or by an organisation. I will shortly come to a set of circumstances that may explain the reasons why Labour was very keen that this bill would not be introduced during the last Parliament. Further the point of this bill is to protect employees who in accordance with the Act make protected disclosures. 
Simon Bridges 
: Was it David Shearer? 
JOHN HAYES 
: No it was not David Shearer but we could go there. 
The bill was considered by the Government Administration Committee and it recommended two changes. The first was the insertion of a new section 6C(2) inserted by clause 6 which states: “An organisation is not required to comply with a request made under subsection (1) if it is not a public sector organisation.” The amendment is designed to make clear that a private sector organisation is not obliged to comply with a request from the Ombudsman for information about the organisation’s internal procedures. 
Although I support the bill I have a concern. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Just the one? 
JOHN HAYES 
: Yes just the one. My concern is this and it applies in Ms Dyson’s part of the world. If a public entity for example a regional council were to own all the shares in a limited liability company would this Parliament expect that organisation to behave with moral integrity? I think the answer to that question would be yes. 
It is in that context that I support the bill and draw the House’s attention to a situation that has arisen in Canterbury around the Canterbury Regional Council headed by one Sir Kerry Burke. Sir Kerry Burke and his band of merry councillors saw fit to own a trading organisation called Target Pest Enterprises Ltd. This company was placed in receivership by the 100 percent shareholder of the company Environment Canterbury or ECan. That is fine except that the regrettable arrangement is that ECan is now refusing to honour payments to creditors totalling around $7.5 million including its own debenture of $1.5 million. The point of this is that one of my constituents in Masterton a small-business man is facing bankruptcy because of the activities of the regional council and its not doing the right thing. 
The problem is this. ECan—essentially Sir Kerry Burke—has decided to stand behind the limited liability arrangements and leave the Target Pest Enterprises directors to face the music. But the plot thickens. There is another Government-owned entity called AgriQuality—now known as Asure New Zealand. During the life of the last Parliament headed by the Labour Government—a great friend of Sir Kerry Burke—this Government entity was authorised to buy a million dollars worth of shares in Target Pest Enterprises. Five months later and the day before the Canterbury Regional Council put its entity into receivership Asure New Zealand sold its million dollars worth of shares back to Target Pest Enterprises Ltd for the princely sum of $1. In 5 months the Government entity Asure Quality managed to lose $999000 of taxpayers’ money. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That’s an outrage. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Of course it is an outrage and that is why this bill is so important. It is so important that we get this passed. 
Despite this there were concerns over the solvency of the business and those concerns had been expressed since 2004 by another Government entity called Audit New Zealand. I contend to the House that this wholly owned subsidiary of the entity headed by Sir Kerry Burke traded recklessly and possibly illegally. The actions of ECan through this period resulted in losses to small businesses and ECan acted and continues to act in a manner contravening its responsibilities under the Local Government Act. 
How do members suggest that I can assert that? Let me draw the attention of the House to a letter to a company called Forest Green Ltd at “27 Normanby Road Mt Eden Auckland” dated 30 November 2005. In part the letter states: “Target Pest has a significant loan with the ASB bank and we also lease many Quad motor cycles from Dave Anderson Motorcycles neither of whom have written Target Pest or ECAN guarantees and are satisfied with the Local Government Act protection. The ASB bank would definitely not loan money to Target Pest without this protection. I am very sorry that I cannot provide the written guarantees we discussed however I hope the Local Government Act satisfies any concerns.” Clearly it did not satisfy any concerns and my constituents are being stretched out on a long piece of wire because it is very easy for the councillors on the Canterbury Regional Council to hide in deep ratepayers’ pockets while it tries to screw the little guys who are being taken to the wall because of the insolvency promoted by the Canterbury Regional Council. 
I think hiding behind a limited liability company is unacceptable behaviour by a local body and that is why this legislation is so fundamentally important to the business people of New Zealand. That is why I stand here in full support of this legislation. 
The second area where a minor change to the Act is being made is in new section 15E(3) inserted by clause 8. The legislation is being amended to include section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act including a reference in section 30 that makes it an offence to refuse to provide to an Ombudsman the information specified in new section 15E. It applies only to public sector organisations. I am very hopeful that my reading of the legislation is correct and that it will stop what has happened in Canterbury where the Canterbury Regional Council is hiding behind a limited liability company pretending there is no issue sending small people to the wall and hiding behind the deep pockets of ratepayers to pay endless lawyers in order to avoid its moral responsibility to do the right thing. 
I publicly ask this House to call upon the Canterbury Regional Council and Sir Kerry Burke and to say: “Look we expect you to do the right thing. If your council has owned this company you cannot hide behind the limited liability legislation. You should do the right thing and pay your creditors including the creditors in my electorate who are owed some $750000.” If it is good enough to pay back the ASB Bank because its accounts are held by the Canterbury Regional Council then it is also good enough to do the right thing and to—