Hutchison Paul: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2750] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of this Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. 
It is very relevant to talk about the health sector in relation to this bill. I reiterate what my colleague Craig Foss brought up about the situation at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board where Deborah Houston contacted the board chairman under the Protected Disclosures Act and was dismissed in a shocking manner. As Mr Foss pointed out she said in a public speech that there is no doubt that the public administration must be transparent and it must be honest. The Labour Opposition members talk about a climate of fear; they have to look at themselves in a mirror. When they were in Government a very unjust dismissal occurred fairly and squarely under their watch. But I will go further than that. In 2007 the New Zealand State Services Commission Integrity and Conduct Survey found that of the respondents working in our district health boards only 23 percent knew about the Protected Disclosures Act—only 23 percent. The rhetoric of the members of that great Labour Government is all about the district health boards and openness but only 23 percent of respondents said they knew anything about the Act or how to apply it. It is quite ridiculous for those Labour members to now get up on their high horse and talk about a climate of fear when undoubtedly they were heavily involved in the creation of one. 
The whole purpose of this bill is to make it much easier for whistleblowers to comfortably complain when that is appropriate. I think that is exactly what comes up in the bill’s new section 6A “Technical failure to comply with or refer to Act” inserted by clause 6.The situation at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was one where Mrs Houston unfortunately talked to the board chairman when she should have talked to the human resources personnel and a calamity—an injustice—happened to her. Of course section 6A “Technical failure to comply with or refer to Act” states: “(1) A disclosure of information is not prevented from being a protected disclosure of information for the purposes of this Act merely because—(a) of a technical failure to comply with sections 7 to 10 if the employee has substantially complied with the requirement in section 6 to disclose the information in accordance with this Act; or (b) the employee does not expressly refer to the name of this Act when the disclosure is made.” A clear example can be made of how Mrs Houston could have applied this new provision. Clearly this bill is a constructive attempt to ensure that people like her will not be treated in the same way that she was treated under the Labour Government. 
I was quite appalled when I heard Grant Robertson talk about a climate of fear. If anyone is generating a climate of fear it is Mr Robertson and the members of the previous Labour Government. After all their Government’s poor-quality public spending over a period of 9 years has put New Zealand in a very difficult position. It spent $10 billion in the last Budget which left the cupboard bare at a time when the previous Government knew that an economic crisis was looming around the world. Furthermore I heard Chris Hipkins talk about Richard Thomson the previous chairman of the Otago District Health Board. But he was not a whistleblower. The chairman’s job is to ensure and to be accountable for the efficient and effective running of that district health board. Yet under his watch New Zealand’s biggest-ever case of fraud occurred. Under his watch that fraud went on for 7 years.