Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Noa'ia 'e mauri. This bill is really all about integrity reputation and democracy. We've heard in this House before that New Zealand always ranks really highly on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index and that is by design and it is safeguarded through bills like this one. We mustn't take that for granted because the Act that this bill is seeking to amend is now more than 20 years old and it is really timely to make sure that we have the institutions—including the laws—in place to maintain our integrity and our reputation internationally and to keep our democracy strong. And I say that—and it sounds rather dramatic—but the institutions of the public sector are part of those very fundamental democratic institutions and it is the people in them who maintain them and maintain their integrity. When things go wrong it is really really important that those people have an avenue by which to air their knowledge or their grievance and that that is taken seriously and that there is a culture where that is encouraged—rather than a culture of fear where people fear for their jobs or fear a reprisal. So we do need this legislation to counter corruption to counter mismanagement bullying and to counter the silence that often happens with the bad stuff. We need a culture of safety and we need a speak up" culture. Even the fact that rules are strengthened and that there is a process in place internally in these public sector institutions may be enough to stop those who would do "bad stuff" from acting in the first place. So we can see the impact of this law is twofold really: it's around making sure that people feel safe and that they can speak up but also sending the signals to the sector and to the institutions that bad behaviour won't be tolerated. And this sits really well actually with the member's bill that I have the privilege of shepherding through this House protecting journalist sources. The reason I say that is because currently with this particular bill that we're debating today a whistleblower may be protected but there would still be a gap in the law if they went to a journalist and the journalist themselves weren't protected. So I'm really heartened to see this law alongside that one.There is evidence we've heard already that shows the culture in the public sector that shows a culture of a little bit of fear where people are fearful to speak out. Forty percent of all respondents currently in work felt their jobs would be safe if they reported the wrongdoing. But that's 40 percent. That could be significantly higher and that was the Chief Ombudsman's commissioned report. Fraudsters can even squeeze out multiple whistleblowers. The research showed that whistleblowers felt they might not be protected or they didn't think that their identity would be anonymous. So what this bill does most importantly is strengthen protections by looking mainly at the role of the receiver of the information and it puts an onus on the receiver of the information in public institutions to at least acknowledge receipt of the information. They must also consider the disclosure. What will they do with it? They need to take it seriously. They need to deal with the matter and they need to—very importantly—inform the discloser about what the receiver is doing and provide reasons for the decision. So the bill also allows the receiver to take no action—equally importantly—and that is to counter vexatious claims and that was something that has been levelled both in the media and also at the select committee stage. We don't want to see vexatious claimants continually blowing their whistles—it's a little bit like the boy who cried wolf; eventually nobody will listen to them but it's very expensive and troubling for the organisation and for those who might be at the receiving end of that—and so this legislation tidies that up really nicely. It also allows people to report to an external authority at any time of the process—very very important—because previously there were limitations on what type of information could be disclosed and when it could be disclosed. Now that doesn't make for a culture of disclosure. It sends a signal to whistleblowers that somehow if they got the wrong time or they had something not quite right in their information they would be rocking the boat and that they would be punished. So this bill changes that. It also requires public sector organisations to provide support for disclosures and that's important: that those who are going to disclose know in advance that they will be supported and what will be available to them. There's a requirement in the bill that says that the procedures must be internally socialised because part of that is about setting up that culture that people can feel safe—people know when they go into whistleblowing what they can expect what the requirement is on the receiver of the information how they will be protected and that they will be dealt with fairly which is at the heart of this. It also includes serious wrongdoing and extends that and it includes that in the misuse of public funds and resources and that extension goes to whether in a public or a private organisation—if it includes non-Government persons working on behalf of Government agencies. And this is just to better reflect the current reality where employment status is no longer just public servants or contractors. There are hybrid kind of roles; there are people who take on roles and do quite significant work for public agencies who are not technically considered full-time employees so that catches those people as well. For private institutions it's a light-handed approach and that's good. It avoids the pitfalls that have been experienced in Australia which has led to inquiries into questions around the scope of the Act. But it's our view that the private sector would still do well to have a policy around this. This bill supports New Zealand's Open Government Partnership National Action Plan 2018-2020. I've mentioned the member's bill that I have the privilege of shepherding but there are other things sitting alongside it looking at greater transparency and greater engagement with Parliament and all of this—again we've talked about the culture of these organisations—is about creating a culture in society where people are proud of the integrity of the institutions and know how the institutions work and want to engage with them and want them to be robust. We can see from what's happened with the war in Ukraine the threat that robust democracies can have and how important it is that we make sure that not only is our democracy strengthened but that people really appreciate the democratic processes. So we've got programmes around engagement with Parliament we've got a Youth Parliament which is happening in July—I'm very excited and I'd like to do a shout out to Cam Fraser my Youth MP in the Taieri electorate. We also have programmes that are looking at extending public participation in policy so we can have the best possible policies as we govern and as we hold each other to account. So the following changes were made at the select committee and these are just some of the technical elements which were around processes for Officers of Parliament. As I've mentioned the meaning of "serious wrongdoing" has been extended and clarified by the Minister to include health and safety and risk to health and safety; disclosing to one's organisation; lots more clarification and emphasis on what the receiver should do; and also allowing for receivers to decide to take no action but having to really justify that decision so that it is fair to the discloser. I agree with what Simon O'Connor said about making sure there are safeguards for those working in intelligence and security information. Obviously we want to make sure that security is paramount and therefore this bill very tidily ensures that those pieces of information are safeguarded from inappropriate disclosure and also there are strengthened protections for disclosures made under a duty of some sort. So those people who are required to disclose under a duty will now feel more protected and more confident about doing so. So I've walked through a little bit about the reasons why I think this is such an important bill. It really speaks to democracy to integrity to our international reputation. And that's not only at a security level but actually for foreign investment. Those who would like to put funds into New Zealand get involved with our country they need to know that the institutions here are transparent and are sound and are corruption-free. So we want to continue to have New Zealand remain at the top or near the top of the Transparency International Corruptions Perception Index. I feel confident that this bill will enable us to do this and I commend it to the House."