Bridges Simon: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2733] 
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.