Robertson Grant: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Robertson Grant: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2185] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow Dr Worth after he read his speech. Personally I preferred it when Annette King read it out as a first reading speech. We each have our personal preferences about that speech— 
Jacqui Dean 
: It’s the same bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: But this is the second reading. It was excellently done and I say “Well done.” to Dr Worth. 
I am very glad that the National Government has picked up this excellent Labour bill—the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. Perhaps Government members were not quite ready for it because the bill on the Table is still in David Parker’s name. But at least they are honouring David Parker and the previous Labour Government for having brought this excellent bill to the House. They have not quite gotten around to getting their own Minister’s name on the bill. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Or their own speech. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right—or even getting their own speech. 
Although it is a very good bill I have to question the Government’s priority: it is saving us from the recession via the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. This bill goes along with the reinstatement of knighthoods—that was also going to save us from the recession as was the bike lane. But it is a good bill and therefore it is good that we are debating it. 
This bill will make it easier for whistleblowers to bring serious wrongdoing to light particularly in Public Service organisations. There are a few potential whistleblowers out there in the Public Service now that National has taken office. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: They’re flooding in. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Plenty of them are flooding in I can tell members because there is a great deal of concern in the public sector at the moment about the National Government’s agenda for the Public Service. We can understand why whistleblowers would be concerned when today Tony Ryall made his long-awaited announcement about the cap on Public Service numbers. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: We felt it coming. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Yes there have been a lot of requests for a definition of the cap and we heard it today. National has moved a few departments out and put a few agencies in and has come up with a number. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Contracts. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Yes contracts are in. But in the end it is all just spin because the Public Service will be cut under the National Government. We have already seen those announcements and people from those agencies are already deeply concerned about the future of their jobs. They will be welcoming the fact that this Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill is before us now. 
 Jobs are being cut— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Nonsense! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Jacqui Dean says it is nonsense but jobs are being cut at the State Services Commission the Tertiary Education Commission the Ministry for the Environment and the National Library. Jobs are being cut in all those organisations. National paraded around New Zealand during the election campaign saying that it would cap the Public Service—cap but not cut. Sue Kedgley who is in the House today was with me in the Wellington Central campaign. The National candidate for Wellington Central constantly berated me when I said that there would be job cuts in the Public Service. But that is what we have seen. This is not a cap; this is a cut. 
Hon Member 
: Focus on the bill! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I am focusing on the bill. It is public servants who will be protected under the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. They are the people who will be protected and they are the people who are concerned about National’s agenda of cutting the Public Service—not capping it; cutting it. Mr Ryall made that announcement today. 
This bill gives an enhanced role for the Ombudsman. I think that is extremely important because the Office of the Ombudsman is a position in our system that is regarded by everybody as a neutral party that can be relied upon to involve itself in disputes and make progress on them. Under this bill the Ombudsman can review an employer’s protected disclosures procedures. That is extremely important because at the moment the Protected Disclosures Act states that people’s first point of call has to be those procedures. But what if those procedures do not exist? We already know that a number of organisations do not have those procedures. This Act allows the Ombudsman to get into those organisations review them and make sure that those procedures are in place. 
The Ombudsman can also give guidance to employees about how the Act works. That is important too because not everybody knows the detail of what they are supposed to do if they have a complaint. If something is going on that deserves this kind of complaint we need to ensure that people can complain even if they are not aware of the detail of the Act or of this new provision. The Ombudsman now has the power to get in there and give guidance. That power has two good results. The first is that it will be able to filter any misguided complaints which occasionally from time to time can be made. That will be an outcome of this bill. The power will also support and encourage people who want to bring to light genuine examples of wrongdoing. 
The bill also gives the Ombudsman the power to take over investigations into wrongdoing if progress slows particularly in the public sector. That is important because sometimes things can be swept under the carpet. We have seen an example of this again today with Tony Ryall and his announcement around the cap on the Public Service; he was spinning his way through it and not wanting to give us the full story. 
 Things can be swept under the carpet in the Public Service from time to time. Inquiries will be called by this Government and progress can slow in those inquires. It is no different when someone makes an application under the Protected Disclosures Act. The Ombudsman now has the ability to take over those investigations into serious wrongdoing and I think that will mean that those investigations will come through far more quickly. 
Another important extension in this legislation is the extension of the definition of “employee”. Up until now the term “employee” has been strictly defined as paid employees but quite often in some of the public sector organisations that we are talking about employees are actually board members or members of local authorities who might have things to bring to light. I know that when the Government Administration Committee heard submissions on this bill it heard from somebody who had been employed at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. In this case the person was a paid employee but given some of the things that were happening at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board it could have been a board member who felt the need to use Protected Disclosures Act. Up until now that person would not have been able to do that but this bill extends the definition of the term “employee” and I think that is a very good thing. 
The Ombudsman will also have the ability to report on how many disclosures come in under the Act how they are processed and how they are dealt with. Again that is very important because if we did not do that we would not know whether the Act was working well. The review that was done in 2003 which my learned colleague Mr Worth referred to did indeed show that the Act was not actually being used a great deal and had not been used well when it was used. That is not good because the protection for people to blow the whistle when they see corruption and wrongdoing is a vital protection to have in our law. If the law was not being used well that meant there was something wrong with the law—the review showed that. Partly it was due to the absence of a central coordinator: someone who was trying to bring together what was happening in this area and who was trying to give guidance both to organisations and to employees about what their rights were. That is the role that the Ombudsman has now been given and I think that will see a great deal more use of the Act. 
 As I have said I also think we will see a great deal more use of the Act because National is in office and public sector organisations are running scared. The huge amount of uncertainty that is going on in the Public Service at the moment driven by National’s policy— 
Jacqui Dean 
: That’s not true. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I say to Jacqui Dean that I am sorry but it is exactly true. There is unbelievable uncertainty in Wellington at the moment because the National Government is not being clear about its policy. Today Tony Ryall tried to come clean and explain what his cap was but he actually left more questions unanswered. We do not know what the floor is at the moment. Tony Ryall has put forward a policy today to say what the maximum number of public servants will be. There is no minimum number—no minimum number at all—so the floor can fall out and National can return to its policies of the 1990s gutting the Public Service and bringing in consultants and contractors. 
To return to the bill it is an important kind of bill because it gives Public Service organisations confidence that their procedures will work and that the Ombudsman will be there to assist them and ensure that the legislation will work into the future. I commend this bill as an excellent bill brought forward by the Labour Government. It is still in the name of David Parker which is an excellent testament to him and is perhaps a testament to the shambolic scenes we saw earlier on the other side of the House. It will protect those who wish to blow the whistle on wrongdoing which is an important right in our society. I am glad to see that the National Government has picked up this bill.