Hayes John: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hayes John: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2210] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise to support the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill and I kick off by saying that New Zealand has a tradition of strong leadership. It perhaps began with “King Dick” Seddon in the 1890s and the first Labour Government around the Second World War conscription and the post-war era. I think of Sir Robert Muldoon’s administration during the economic crisis of the 1970s the fourth Labour Government from 1984 to 1990 and the National Government from 1900 until MMP arrived in 1996. The unbridled power of executive Government has been described as perhaps the most streamlined form of democracy in the world. I also think of my constituents and I see New Zealanders valuing pragmatism flexibility and innovation. When we want to change things we generally adopt an incremental approach to deal with problems. By and large the New Zealand community is happy to make changes in the way that we run our legislation. I see in my community a strong sense of egalitarianism and a sense of fair play and I think that honesty is a strong New Zealand value. In my community there is a widespread view that everybody should have a fair go and there is a belief that when injustices occur they need to be remedied. If someone has made a mistake or caused a problem even unwittingly he or she needs to front up and admit it. 
Over recent years there has also been a shift in the way that New Zealand officials local government politicians and others engage with business. There was a time when businesses took the view that central government would create broad business conditions through taxes trade policies subsidies—way back when there were things like subsidies—and monetary policy. They thought that there was not too much that local bodies could do to influence business conditions and their activities were minor. Over recent years we have seen the role of central and local government change quite significantly. If I think of my own electorate I have seen the Universal College of Learning a State-owned enterprise involving itself in Martinborough by going along and saying that it was going to set up a cuisine school. More recently I have seen activities under the aegis of the Canterbury Regional Council and its wholly owned subsidiary Target Pest Enterprises Ltd. That company went into receivership and cost people in my community serious amounts of money. I see that as indicative of an environment where our local authorities are much more engaged in commercial activity. I think of the Greater Wellington Regional Council and the consistent loss-making entity called BioWorks which is also competing with private sector companies. I support the broad approach of the 2003 review of the Protected Disclosures Act for those reasons as does the Government. There is a need to improve the workings of the legislation both in its day-to-day operations and in its administration. 
I recall about 2 years ago saying to John Belgrave a friend and a man I highly respected as an Ombudsman that the Office of the Ombudsmen was vital because it was the one guarantor that the right thing could be done and when the right thing was not done then politicians and people in the community relied on the integrity of the Office of the Ombudsmen to get good disclosure. I know that across our communities the Office of the Ombudsmen is held in high regard as it is in this Parliament. With this legislation we are trying to facilitate the Office of the Ombudsmen and the coordination role that it has. 
If we provide better tools through this amendment bill we can expect that Government agencies should be able to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner and will be better able to hold Government—both central government and local government—to account. I stress local government because that is where I keep seeing some entities owned by local government stepping out of line in provincial communities. For example the Universal College of Learning a tertiary provider is stepping out of line in some of the things it is doing. It is ultimately the people inside an organisation at all levels who are watching what is going on and very often are best placed to get engaged in the business of saying: “Excuse me I’m not sure that this is right. Could we please have another look at it?”. If they cannot get their colleagues in the organisation to do that then they need a vehicle for blowing the whistle. Protecting whistleblowers is not just a matter for legislative change; we also need ongoing operational improvements which are very important. We must learn from our mistakes. Silence is not in the public interest. We want the public to have confidence in the process of making a protected disclosure and in my 3½ years in Parliament I can point to a number of instances where that level of confidence has not existed or has not protected people. 
This bill will give effect to the recommendations of the 2003 review of the Protected Disclosures Act and I commend my colleague Tony Ryall for bringing this legislation back to the House and progressing it within the first 100 days of this administration. That review found there had been delays and inconsistencies around the legislative procedures of the Act as well as confusion about some of the definitions and a lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity. That is something that can be very hard to do in an environment where a relatively small group of people know what is going on. 
This bill provides additional powers for Ombudsmen to request information from both public and private organisations and to coordinate cross-agency activity. The bill widens the definition of “public official” and of “employee” for the purposes of the Act. It extends access to the Act and to its protections. The bill will also allow whistleblowers to continue to receive the protection of the Act if they believe on reasonable grounds that the information provided relates to serious wrongdoing even if this belief is found to be mistaken. There are two further amendments to the bill that I will remain silent on at this point but I hope to address them in the third reading of the bill. Again I wholeheartedly support this legislation. Thank you.