Nash StuartSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier): OK. Well thank you very much for the opportunity. I am not going to talk about the Supplementary Order Paper and because I was not on the select committee there are just a couple of questions to the Minister which I have no doubt he will be able to answer very simply. I would like to talk to clause 122 and this requires the inspector-general to prepare and publish an annual work plan. There are just a couple of things I have here. I mean we talk about the integrity and the independence of the security services and you know we guard that jealously. I suppose a couple of things that I just have questions on—the inspector-general of course when he or she prepares the work plan has to consult the Ministers on that proposed work plan and I understand that. That is fine. But does that potentially lead to a level of political interference? I know that this Minister—Chris Finlayson—would not go down that route in any way shape or form because he is scrupulously fair but does it lead to any sort of charge of political interference? The other thing is that clause 122(2) says: The Inspector-General after having regard to any comments received from the Ministers must finalise the annual work programme." There is no problem with having to finalise the annual work plan but does "after having regard to" mean he can completely ignore the Ministers' recommendation or the Ministers' input? Or does that mean that he is under—or she or the inspector-general; I should probably use the correct term—some sort of obligation to include the Ministers' input? Again I just ask whether that is open to a little bit of political interference. We go down to clause 122(3) and it talks about "the Inspector-General—(a) must give a copy [of the work plan] to the Ministers;". That makes absolute sense. But clause 122(3)(b) says he or she "may publish [the work plan] on an Internet site maintained by or on behalf of the Inspector-General." I am just curious to know—because it says "may" there is absolutely no obligation to do this—whether this Minister for example would give permission for the inspector-general to publish that work plan on the internet and under what conditions would he deny the inspector-general the ability to publish the work plan on the internet? We are talking about clause 122(3)(b). There is no obligation but it does mention it in legislation. I know the word "may" versus the word "must" as mentioned provides no obligation but the fact that it actually is in this clause in here which says it may publish it on the internet says to me that it is Parliament's way of directing a Minister or an inspector-general to actually undertake a course of action unless there is a really good reason why they would not. So it is just a question there. I go down to clause 123 and I am assuming Minister—this is page 101—that this is part of whistleblower legislation? What we are talking about here is it says "(1) This section applies if an employee … brings any matter to the attention of the Inspector-General or Deputy Inspector-General." but then it goes on to say: "(2) The employee must not be subjected … to any penalty or discriminatory treatment … in relation to his or her employment …" by reason of bringing an issue to the inspector-general or to the deputy inspector-general. Is this a whistleblower clause? I am assuming it probably is. Hon Christopher Finlayson: Yes it is. STUART NASH: Oh that is good to know. The interesting thing is though that it says "subsection (2)"—i.e. non-discrimination—"does not apply if the Inspector-General determines that the employee did not act in good faith." I understand good-faith provisions but again I am curious—I was going to say "concerned" but "concerned" is not right—as to who would be the arbiter of what determines good faith? The reason I ask that is—well the classic case which our colleague Sue Moroney talked about was in the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) where a woman was stealing money. Employees went to her boss and said: "This woman is stealing money." What happened was they were restructuring the NZTA and the people who had gone to this woman's boss were clearly discriminated against and ended up being made redundant. Under this sort of clause I wonder whether they would have had any redress even after they had been made redundant and the issue of wrongdoing was proven in the future. I know there was a chap in town just recently—I think he might even be here—who is an acknowledged expert on whistleblowing. He did it himself and he travels the world talking about the implications for an employee of whistleblowing. So the good-faith test is good but it is just a little bit concerning there. Hey there is one thing. In clause 124 the persons who are—"