Jones Shane: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Jones Shane: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12578] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand to take a call on the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill which will be referred to the appropriate select committee. I do not plan to continue on in the incendiary way that my fellow Northland Tai Tokerau member Mr Harawira did but rather to focus on the content of the bill. 
However I would like to point out that this bill is designed to give the Ombudsman an enhanced reviewing and investigating role and we have in our midst Mr McGee who is soon to depart to assume that role. In the context of this speech—and I took the liberty of checking whether such an insertion into a speech about the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill would be permitted—I join with other MPs who no doubt will have made and will be making congratulatory references to Mr McGee. As a young MP it has been very impressive to watch him dispense advice and knowledge in the House. 
 This bill strikes at the question of how potential wrongdoing potential fraud or acts of a corrupt nature see the light of day when those who suspect they witnessed the potential crime or witnessed potential larceny feel unwilling or unable to give evidence or highlight the existence of such an act. These potential whistleblowers suffer doubts as to whether they should fulfil either an ethical or a moral duty because historically there have not been comprehensive levels of protection. I would point out however that an earlier Labour Government did seek to offer levels of protection to whistleblowers. This is an essential ingredient for any system any institution and in particular the public sector to work effectively. 
We can all think of instances that have hit the media and indeed have been the substance of debates in this House. There is hardly a member in this House who would not have had referred to him or her from time to time anxieties doubts and even suspicions of wrongdoing. Under this bill whistleblowers will enjoy elevated protection. Those who are board members volunteers etc. will now be regarded as having the ability to enjoy protection under this proposal. Such a level of protection will not only afford a greater level of security to them when they make the harsh and difficult step to isolate a person or a group of people who may have committed a crime but also obliges the authorities to protect the identity of the whistleblower and to treat with a great deal of judiciousness the information that may be referred to them. 
When my colleague Annette King introduced the bill to the House she accentuated the importance of maintaining integrity and standards in the public sector. There are already a host of valves and avenues—processes—to enable decision makers to be made accountable. Earlier we heard from Mr Hone Harawira who told us in a very heated fashion about his view in terms of the decision makers in relation to recent police actions. I just say to all members and in particular our Maori members let us have a clear head and not a fiery mouth and let us just suspend judgment and embrace Sir James Carroll’s dictum of taihoa until we are in possession of the information. Flinging around wild accusations and making an already fraught situation more difficult with torrid outbursts does not advance our situation in any way whatsoever. 
I was in Australia recently and had occasion to read in one of the local papers over there about a recent cartel case that had been successfully prosecuted. A sum of $30-odd million had been paid over by the owner of a packaging company called Visy. In that article was an interesting reference to the fact that when Australia sought to extend and develop greater levels of protection in terms of whistle-blowing it was able to borrow on the American model. I raise this because the problems that we are dealing with here are not isolated to New Zealand. If there are practices behaviours and systemic failures that ought to see the light of day and enjoy the disinfectant quality of media scrutiny or public approval or disapproval then it does go to the heart of our nation’s reputation in the eyes of our trading partners and other nation States that look to us as to the way we are observing the rule of law and contract law and the manner in which our institutions are governed and managed. 
So just as the Aussies managed to borrow and no doubt amend and adapt an American model leading to whistleblowers coming to the fore to a substantial settlement to break up a cartel in the packaging area—the name of the company I have earlier referred to—I have no doubt that there will come a time when people who work in our institutions will feel emboldened to bring wrongdoing to the attention of their superiors public officials or members of the media who no doubt will treat it with a level of sophistication and seriousness which we all too often do not see. The bill accentuates the duty on all of us in this House to ensure that where people make the difficult step to highlight probable wrongdoing they will not be personally hounded into penury and their professional standards that have developed in terms of a reputation will not be swept out down some sort of a bung. 
Of course there will be a fear that vexatious mischievous and half-baked claims—one or three of those come forward in the House from time to time—might actually blight this area of the law or the people who hold responsible positions whether they are senior figures in the education field leaders in the public sector commercial field or those handling sensitive areas such as the Department of Corrections. There may be a fear that very negative embittered minds might use this legislation or this option for a mischievous trivial purpose. When we think of the calibre of the man who is soon to become our newest Ombudsman I have no doubt in my mind that such claims that are not substantial but could be designed for trivial purposes will be winnowed out and that this area of the law will not be trivialised but rather will offer a particularly good level of protection. 
From time to time we hear and learn about abusive practices and abusive types of behaviour that have been visited upon women and young workers. Indeed I remember being a young worker in the Westfield freezing works in the fellmongery. While I worked there I knew that whatever I did I was going to suffer the boredom of university and get a degree because suffering green paint down my finely honed legs and going home hairless was not a career. Such things do occur in the fellmongery when one’s mind is not on the job. Abusive work practices also are an example where people will be able to complain and not suffer a greater level of either abuse or intimidation. All of these abusive practices will be swept up and a larger number of people will be able to ensure that workplaces are safe but superiors and bosses who have an obligation to abide by standards of integrity and to ensure that the institutions are governed and managed in a compliant and law-like manner have to tow the line. 
So along with my colleagues from this side of the House and in contrast to my whanaunga’s incendiary speech I look forward to learning more about this bill when it eventually returns from the select committee. Kia ora tatou.