Moroney Sue: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Moroney Sue: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2738] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 In speaking to the Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill I am reminded by Part 1 that we are amending the principal Act brought in in 2000. If we reflect on why it came in at the time it is interesting to note that it is often the health sector where great use is made of this particular Act. I cannot remember the very brave man’s name; it used to be etched on my memory. [ 
Interruption 
] Neil Pugmire—I knew one of my colleagues would bring the name forward—was a very brave mental health nurse I believe from Canterbury or somewhere—[ 
Interruption 
]—from Wanganui who unfortunately did not have the protection of this legislation but he is the man who brought this gap in legislation to the attention of this House. 
What happened in 2000 and what probably happened during the course of 1999—because the legislation was enacted in 2000—was that Neil Pugmire had tried to use all of the processes available to him within his hospital setting to raise concerns about the lack of resources and the lack of proper attention and care being given to mental health patients in Wanganui at the time. He was doing that using his advocacy role as a health professional as we would all want him to do—as all health professionals are educated and trained to do when they go through their training. What did he get for using his advocacy role as we would want him to do? He lost his job. He was sacked because when the internal processes did not give him a result and his issues were not being heard he dared to take the matter further and alerted authorities over and above the hospital board about the concerns that he was raising. He went public with his concerns about how mental health patients were being treated at the time. He got sacked because there was no such legislation in 1999 that protected his interests even though he had not only the right but the responsibility as a health professional to advocate for the patients and the people he was seeing and to require a better service for them. 
In 2000 the incoming Labour Government brought in the Protected Disclosures Act as we now know it. It is timely that some 8 or 9 years later we are reflecting again on this legislation because that was the first time we had had such a protection in law. We have discovered through the passage of time that the Act does need amending and Part 1 enhances the role of the Ombudsmen. I think it is timely for another reason not only because approximately 9 years have elapsed since this legislation was first drafted but also because in 2009 I am certain there is something of a climate of fear particularly among the public service in New Zealand. Therefore strengthening the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill at a time when public servants fear for their jobs is important. Public servants know that the knife is out for their positions and such a climate must make it extremely difficult for them to address any issues that concern them. There is a climate of fear. We know that public service jobs are under the knife and that must make it exceptionally difficult for public servants to raise any concerns that they might have. 
Many of my colleagues have raised very good examples of the sort of work undertaken by public servants at the moment. Those public servants may have some concerns about that work. They may not be able to do the work on the cycleway because the Minister of Finance has said that there is no money available for it this year next year or the year after that. So a public servant required to do work on that piece of work might have concerns that he or she wants to raise. My other colleagues have raised many other examples. It is very timely that we look again to the gaps that are in the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill—very timely in the current environment. 
I want to speak very briefly on how Part 1 enhances the role of the Ombudsman. The bill will give the Ombudsman the ability to review an employer’s protected disclosures procedure.