Hipkins ChrisSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much; important to stretch one's legs! Actually twofold I'm interested to hear the response to Jan Logie's part. These things can go too far but I think actually the heart of the argument is ultimately there's no point in being a discloser or someone's who seeking to do good if they're not given the enablement or the protections to do so. The second part—it's really very very simple. It's do with clause 19(4) retaliate"—hopefully a simple question Minister. This is quite definitional about what it means to retaliate which is fine but it doesn't seem broad enough potentially. In other words is it too specific? I'm not going to go through other ways of retaliating but I've often seen in other pieces of legislation there'd be like a section 5 which would say other forms of retaliation—in other words this has become very very specific. If in theory's sake an employer finds a way to retaliate outside of what's written here can he give—that is the Minister—assurances to the committee that that will be covered? It's just to me the non-legal person here that normally when we have a "Retaliate means…" or "Whatever statement means…" you have A B C D and E and eventually you have something that says "and other forms of retaliation." But this to me seems quite specific—yeah it seems quite specific. Is he sure that we aren't going to find in six months' or a year's time a form of retaliation that doesn't fall within his proposals?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for the Public Service): I'll comment on that quite briefly. It is quite a detailed definition of "retaliation" that the member's referring to which is quite a broad and encompassing definition so I'm not concerned that it's not clear.In terms of the issues that Jan Logie raised one of the things that I found—as we went through the policy development for this bill—to be one of the more challenging things is: considering how the bill might be applied in the case of quite small entities compared to large Government departments. We often think about protected disclosures in the form of you know big Government entities with lots of resources and lots of ability to do things and if someone makes a disclosure yep it's no problem to provide extra support. But we also have to consider that this legislation includes some quite small NGOs for example where they're not necessarily going to always be able to do the sorts of things that the member has outlined.So if we were going to put those provisions in law I think we would have to first make sure that we had a good basis for knowing that they were achievable and that people could actually comply with them. So I'm not at this point saying we wouldn't do it; I'm just saying that we wouldn't do it right now. Because again as I indicated to the member I think that there are some issues that we just need to unpack more carefully. Of course as I indicated before I'm disappointed it's taken us this long to get this far. It's been a pretty bumpy couple of years; a few other things have been going on. I hope that we can make more progress on the next part of this a bit more quickly than the first part.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Minister's amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 131 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to."