Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6697] 
4.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Is the Government considering any amendments to the Protected Disclosures Act 2000? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of State Services 
: Yes. The bill would give the Ombudsman an enhanced guiding monitoring and investigating role in respect of whistle-blowing. Other amendments would clarify and extend the group of people who can whistle-blow and come within the Act’s protections. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Would the effect of the bill be to extend protection to whistle-blowers wanting to expose important public figures whom they believe have been acting unethically dishonestly and even illegally and getting away with it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The bill will extend assistance and protection to such groups. It may also discourage efforts to suppress such information by legal injunction—such as Dr Brash has done to try to stop the public finding out what his actual thoughts and actions were and what motivated him. It is worth the Opposition thinking about the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who once said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Dr Brash is clearly concerned about his actions being exposed to sunlight. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Do the answers that the Minister has just given to those two questions mean that the police were wrong when they asserted that they could not prosecute the Labour Party for its massive election overspend—its $850000 corrupt dip into taxpayer funds for its pledge card—because it may involve a prosecution of a staff member when at all times that staff member would have been protected by this legislation and Helen Clark should have been put in the dock had the police been more competent in their investigation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It does not mean that but before the member points the finger at somebody else his party should pay back the $110000 it has not paid for its advertising. National should admit that it went over the limit and face the punishment it will get by way of a fine. It should own up and pay up! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that when the Government asks itself a patsy question and it goes terribly wrong Ministers like Mr Goff lose their cool. But that answer bore no resemblance to the primary question whereas in fact my supplementary question to Mr Goff did. I would like an answer. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer is no. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister has answered the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Do we take it that this legislation would not protect the likes of Heather Simpson from police prosecution should she have chosen to dob in the Labour Party—as she should have? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No we are getting into a debate. But if the Minister wants to clarify the answer he may. Then we will move on. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer is no. The premises on which the member asked his question were quite wrong. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Would the legislation protect those responsible for leaking Government information such as that with which the National Opposition has been involved over many years? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The legislation is designed to promote the public interest by facilitating the disclosure and the investigation of serious wrongdoing. It is doubtful that any of the National Party leaks could be defined in this way but the definition most certainly would apply to the sorts of allegations made against Dr Brash and other senior National Party figures from within the National Party itself. The double standard is that the party that claims to believe in transparency and openness absolutely refuses to apply those same principles of transparency and openness to itself. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members wish to remain in the House for question time they will please keep their interventions to a reasonable level. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Are the amendments being proposed consistent with strengthening democracy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: They are absolutely consistent with strengthening both democracy and openness. By contrast the use of injunctions to suppress information that is in the public interest as Dr Brash has attempted to do is as the  
New Zealand Herald  
states today “not healthy for our democracy.” Those who claim that they are ready to be trusted with power have to accept that their dealings should be open to scrutiny. The National Party is not prepared to accept that and it is certainly not ready for power. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Do I assume that the high-hatted attitude taken by Mr Goff means that Helen Clark will now release all the discussions that took place in her office over the decision to rort the taxpayer of $850000 for electioneering purposes? Why cannot the Labour Party be honest open and accountable? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member knows that is not a point of order.