Katene Rahui: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Katene Rahui: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2209] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 If I had one concern about the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill it would be in the title. How much easier would it be if we knew we were standing to talk to the issue of workplace whistle-blowing—or even to talk to the bill to report serious wrongdoing in the workplace? 
The concept of disclosure has of course many and varied meanings. As a former lawyer the context I am most familiar with is disclosure as interpreted across various statutes. In company law disclosure relates to giving out information about public or limited companies. Disclosure in a property context refers to information being disclosed about aspects to do with real estate that might influence the property values or appraisal. Or in a criminal law action it might be understood within the context of the victim protection scheme. In a health context disclosure might relate to the nature of one’s disability or specific health condition. Whereas “workplace whistle-blowing” would clearly convey the types of disclosures that might promote investigation of serious wrongdoing in the workplace and provide protection for employees. Of course we would expect that “serious wrongdoing” could benefit from a full definition as well. 
This issue—of knowing exactly what we mean when we refer to protected disclosure—was a key concern brought forward by Mary Scholtens QC in her 2003 review of how well the protected disclosure legislation was working. In her assessment there were many difficulties associated with using the legislation procedures properly not the least being confusion over some definitions. 
Another key group of concerns was around a perceived lack of confidentiality and protection of identity. The review went so far as to say that the perception was so strong as to be possibly a reality—that it was unlikely the identity of a person making the protected disclosure would remain confidential. This is of course at the heart of the legislation so is a significant concern that this House must address. David Woodnorth a barrister writing in  
Employment Today 
 observed that “employees may only be prepared to blow the whistle on wrongdoing when they can be reassured that a high degree of confidentiality applies to their identity as the informant.” If confidentiality cannot be assured then employee confidence in the process will be unlikely and as a consequence the Act will only ever have limited effectiveness. 
In response to these not insignificant concerns the 2003 review recommended that the functions of the Ombudsman could be extended under the Act to give more explicit powers related to information-giving and advising. The bill highlights the role of the Ombudsman giving him or her an enhanced role in guiding reviewing and investigating disclosures of serious wrongdoing. In particular the Office of the Ombudsmen is charged with facilitating a collaborative cross-agency approach. We support the role of the Ombudsman in taking up a more substantial responsibility in managing and coordinating the various investigative functions of organisations and we were pleased to see the amendment from the Government Administration Committee making it an offence to refuse to provide the Ombudsman with information about internal procedures. 
Accountability transparency credibility—these are all concepts that the Maori Party has always placed a great deal of weight around. In our policy manifesto  
He Aha Te Mea Nui 
 we were keen to investigate a more substantial role for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. We had envisaged that an important new function they could take on would be reporting annually on the effectiveness of interventions targeted at Maori Pasifika refugees migrants and youth. This same reporting procedure might encompass an annual report on the capability of the State sector to achieve outcomes for Maori. So opening up one’s books—throwing light on to the affairs of any entity—is something that we believe is fundamental to the operations of a healthy democracy. We welcome therefore the recommendation to ensure both public and private sector organisations and employees will be required to provide information about their internal procedures around disclosure in the public interest. 
I have to admit—and I am sure the Minister would be of the same view—that it made serious reading to learn of the concerns raised by John Crowther. Mr Crowther was acting for Deborah Houston who was the whistleblower in matters of conflict of interest with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Ms Houston was acutely aware of the importance of getting it right in improving the protection of whistleblowers. In her experience the risk of retaliation was high. More evidence around this is provided in the New Zealand State Services Commission integrity and conduct survey of 2007. It was extremely disappointing to learn that district health boards have the lowest awareness of the provisions in the Protected Disclosures Act. Less than a quarter—some 23 percent—of our district health boards knew about the provisions of the Act. The other revealing finding was that there was less belief at the district health board level that senior and middle-management would exhibit and practise elements of ethical behaviour. The third disturbing conclusion from the survey was that although district health board employees report breaches of standards at about the same rate as the State services average their reasons for not reporting are typically more fear-based. In the report of the survey it notes that of the district health board employees who report misconduct some 30 percent claim to have experienced retaliation as a result. The leaders and decision makers of the institutions focused on the health and well-being of New Zealanders are at fault. I believe this is also a specific issue for all who are charged with responsibility in the health sector to face. 
On the basis of the 2003 review by Mary Scholtens and the submissions received for this bill there clearly has been an inconsistent application of the Act including questions about what agencies are included as “appropriate authorities”. And yet at the same time when the provisions of the Act had been incorporated into an organisational culture—when the risk management policies of an agency and the procedures relating to appropriate ethical conduct are sufficiently robust—then it has appeared to work well. 
We in the Maori Party have an interest in all organisations working well which will ultimately be in the best interests of the workforce of families and of the wider community. We believe the implementation of the Act would be successful with a greater involvement from the Office of the Ombudsmen and we support the overall thrust of extending human rights protections to those making disclosures of serious wrongdoing. The Maori Party supports this bill. Kia ora.