King Colin: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2752] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to move the conversation on a little during this Committee stage. I will focus on the amendments the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill makes to section 15 of the Protected Disclosures Act. The bill adds quite a considerable amount of value to that section. When we look at the bill we see clause 8 inserts a new section 15A. Under the original Act there is only section 15 and nothing else. In the bill we get new sections 15A 15B 15C 15D and 15E. I must admit that these new sections are very much about the body of this bill. They add transparency and confidence. They have everything to do with what the Ombudsmen’s responsibilities are. 
New section 15A takes us through how the Ombudsmen may take over some investigations or investigate in conjunction with a public sector organisation. That is a very good move in the sense that along with the trust that the public must have in the public sector organisations we also have the credibility integrity and respect of the Office of the Ombudsmen. When we take our view down to new subsection (1) we see that it states “An Ombudsman may take over an investigation of a disclosure of information by a public sector organisation or investigate a disclosure of information in conjunction with a public sector organisation.” It goes on through new paragraphs (a) (b) (c) and (d) and it talks about the very cases where that applies. When we go down to new subsection (2) however it says that new subsection (1) “does not authorise an Ombudsman to act if the protected disclosure of information is in respect of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.” That is quite interesting. At first we might ask why not? When we stop to think about it we realise it is probably quite appropriate because the Ombudsman is an Officer of Parliament. It would not be appropriate to have an Officer of Parliament investigating another Officer of Parliament. 
That does bring to mind an incident that happened during the last term of Parliament between 2005 and 2008 when we had a serious issue. It was not with regard to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment; it was actually with regard to the Ministry for the Environment. If people cast their minds back to the occasion of the lying of a lazy Labour Government Minister by the name of David Benson-Pope and the incident around the dismissal of a media employee because of her relationship with a person who had political affiliations it just draws us back to the points that were made before on the other side of the Chamber around the politicisation that can occur. 
It is worth mentioning in this Committee stage that the politicisation from within this Chamber is something that needs to be given consideration to in the future around this particular bill. Under the previous Labour Government we saw the politicisation of the Public Service. That particular case which meant a media employee was dismissed because of her relationship with a National Party employee was treated quite unscrupulously. I say that members opposite will now realise that that was a terrible situation to fall into. Effectively that was the death knell of the previous Government and the final nail in its coffin because it had allowed that politicisation to occur and did not protect the individual. I would moot with some confidence that in the future what will happen around this legislation is that we will have to do our utmost to protect the individual over and beyond what this bill represents. When we look at how the Ombudsmen behave and conduct themselves we see that we are thinking quite seriously about the individual.