Hipkins Chris: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2804] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the third reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. As I said in some of my earlier speeches fundamentally this bill is about power the abuse of power preventing that abuse or where it occurs at least disclosing it. I want to canvass some of the issues I raised during the Committee stage—to sum them up as provided for in Speakers’ rulings. 
Since the completion of the Committee stage an issue has arisen that has relevance to this bill. This bill extends the protection of the Protected Disclosures Act to contractors. We had an interesting new example of contractors revealed in the House this afternoon and that is the purchase advisers employed by the Government in Ministers’ offices. Those people are being engaged as contractors rather than as public servants because the Government said earlier in the year that it was going to pay its press secretaries and political advisers more but it would employ fewer of them. So as a way of getting around that they have contracted in these purchase advisers. They are making the Government departments pay for them— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right. They are making the Government departments pay for them for their political advice in order to get around their earlier commitment to have fewer people working in the Beehive. Of course we now know that they will actually have more people working in the Beehive and they will get around that commitment by making them contractors. These contractors because of the changes to the Protected Disclosures Act will now be covered by this legislation. 
It is interesting is it not that these purchase advisers are effectively going to be spies for the Minister of Finance because it is on the Minister of Finance’s instigation that these purchase advisers are being engaged. He wrote to departments instructing them—he did not just ask them to consider it—to engage these purchase advisers and he even went so far as to tell them how much they were to be paid and gave them a list of the names of the people they were to engage. It raises a whole lot of questions around the political neutrality of the Public Service which the National Party of course said in its pre-election manifesto that it would defend and restore when the Minister of Finance can now instruct a department to employ purchase advisers who will not be accountable to the chief executive they work for. They will answer only to the Minister they will be paid for by the taxpayer and they will not be subject to the standards of conduct and ethics that a normal public servant is. That is outrageous because it is political abuse. 
These purchase advisers will be covered by the legislation and I want to talk a little about what that might mean. They will be covered so they themselves will be able to make a protected disclosure. So if in the course of their razor gang slash-and-burn exercise—which of course is what we know the Government is employing them to do—they uncover some wrongdoing they will be able to make a protected disclosure. We support that and we welcome it because it is important that people working in Government are able to make protected disclosures to reveal wrongdoing where it occurs. The fact that these purchase advisers will be on contract makes them no different; they should be able to make a protected disclosure. 
But staff who are subject to their prying and their prodding should also be able to make a protected disclosure about them because those people are not going to be subject to the code of conduct for public servants. They will not be prevented from engaging in the party political activities that a public servant is prevented from engaging in because they will not be covered by the Public Service code of conduct. So if a public servant wants to raise a complaint about abuse of power by one of those purchase advisers engaged because Bill English told Ministers that he wanted them to be engaged—and he wanted them to be engaged because he does not trust any of the Ministers he works with—that public servant should be able to make a protected disclosure. It is interesting to note the list of Ministers who do not have purchase advisers. The brat pack—or the two remaining members of it—for example do not appear to have purchase advisers. Bill English clearly trusts those. Paula Bennett has to have a purchase adviser— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: At least one. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: She may well require more. If public servants are concerned about the abuse of power by one of these purchase advisers they will be able to make protected disclosures under the Protected Disclosures Act because one of the big changes is that contractors are now going to be covered. I think that is something we would welcome. 
We should consider in the context of the legislation some of the issues that a public servant may wish to raise because the Public Service needs protection now more than ever. With the slash-and-burn going on within the Public Service at the moment there may well be—and I suspect there will be—a lot more reason for public servants to want to make protected disclosures. When the Public Service is cut to the bone then the accountability and the checks and balances are stripped away in a money-saving exercise. Therefore the potential for the abuse of power is significantly increased so a public servant may want to make a protected disclosure. 
Another issue is that there may be a temptation to cover up mistakes made in the Public Service because of a chronic lack of resourcing or lack of funding. In the health sector for example where the National Government’s razor gang are going through and stripping funding and resourcing out there may well be instances where public lives are put at risk— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Elderly people. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —particularly in the aged care industry where people are dealing with very vulnerable older people and the public servants involved need to know that they can make a complaint and that they are not going to lose their jobs. Of course there are other examples of people who need some protection under this legislation and one of the things that this amendment bill does is to extend the protection of the Protected Disclosures Act to the chairpeople of boards. We know it is important that board people have protection under this National Government as well. Look at the case of the Otago District Health Board where there was a revelation of wrongdoing which National members have talked about. But they do not talk about the guy who fixed it who was the chair of the board and who got sacked for his troubles. National members did not like him they did not like his politics so they just sacked him. That highlights a weakness with the Protected Disclosures Act—although it protects the disclosure itself it does not protect the people who are then responsible for fixing the problem. A chairperson who uncovered some wrongdoing and wanted to make a protected disclosure would be covered by the protection of this legislation. On the other hand if somebody else made a protected disclosure and the chairperson who had been unaware of the situation then fixed it the Government will sack him or her. Because that is what this Government does; if there is any wrongdoing this Government always sacks the people who fix the problem. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Bizarre. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It is completely bizarre. 
I will talk about some of the other people who might be covered by the Protected Disclosures Act. I talked a little bit about ministerial office staff and the fact that they could be covered by this. For example if a Minister travelled to India to promote his or her own business interest using a diplomatic passport to do so or failed to disclose that a company he or she was associated with was being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and a whistleblower in his or her office wanted to raise a concern about that that person would be protected by the Protected Disclosures Act. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That’s going to be helpful. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That will be helpful because these are matters of public accountability: it is public money and it is about the abuse of power. People should be protected if they are going to disclose such matters. Of course the problem is that even if that kind of abuse of power is disclosed this Government does not do anything about it. Even when John Key says three times that the Minister is on his final warning he still does not get sacked. Even when John Key gives him a “bollocking” in public and calls him “stupid” he still does not get sacked. I am of course talking about Dr Richard Worth who abused his position to promote a business in which he had an interest. Yet this Government and this Prime Minister are not doing anything about it. 
Labour supports the enhanced provisions of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. In fact we introduced them. This bill is yet another bill that was introduced by the previous Labour Government—the National Government cannot seem to come up with any of its own. Government members are too busy flying off around the world feathering their own nests and promoting their own business interests to come up with any legislation of their own. I look forward to a day when we can stand up and debate in this Chamber what the National Government wants to do rather than going back over the legislation introduced by the previous Labour Government. It is good legislation so I commend it to the House but I would like to see some evidence that this Government is actually doing something.